Senate Democrats Announce Vote To Advance Supreme Court Ethics Bill

That’s your opinion. I think neither is actually “destroying the country”. They both are sucking it up and doing crappy jobs though. Also an opinion.

Also, do not edit my posts. You can quote me in its entirety and bold what you want to respond to.

 

That is a false argument, that Congress could declare the Court "unconstitutional." Congress does not have that power-- only the SCOTUS, article 3, does. The rest of the Judiciary, as well as the Congress and President, have ethics rules-- do you see these as likewise problematic? Is it reasonable to conclude that this means that Congress could declare the office of President, as "unconstitutional?"

Even if impeachment were a real possibility, it is foolish to position our nation, with respect to its High Court, as in effect telling Justices, they can be as unethical as they want, up until the point when: 1) we discover their unethical practices; and 2) a two-thirds majority of Senators, would be willing to boot them off the Court. This would require a significant number of minority Party legislators, crossing the aisle, to remove a Justice who they see as "on their team," to be replaced, in this case, by a Justice nominated by the President of the opposite Party.

This dynamic means that just because the numbers aren't there, to sustain an impeachment, in no way implies that Justices don't deserve to be impeached.

Edit at members request/sp check

 

Two points: because partisanship, in most cases, clearly now trumps concerns over propriety, and what is best for the nation, your argument is logically supportive (whether or not you realize and/or can accept it) of the idea of a larger Court, of rotating members, to minimize the activist urges, or the outright corruption, of any given Justice, on either end of the ideological spectrum.


The second point, was that your analogy is bogus, as there is no comparable offense, known to've been committed by Justices Kagan or Brown, as we know to exist, especially with Justice Clarence Thomas but also, at least, with Justice Alito.

 

No it doesn't. The impeachment power is strictly limited.

Article I . Section 3 Senate. Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments; Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.

What do you think 'shall not extend further than' means?

And why do you think that the Framers added that limitation to the Constitution?

 

How can this bill be a bad thing? It's good for America and will tamp down on corruption and the appearance of corruption.

 

It's not as much 'problematic' as it is false.

Congress has NOT imposed ethics rules on the President. It does not have that power. It's the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), which sets the rules for other Executive Branch personnel, and that has very little enforcement authority and no real independence from the president. Congress does have the power the impose ethics rules on Congress, as the Constitution grants them the authority to each branch of the legislature, the power to create the rules they will live under.

That's like asking "is it reasonable for Congress to declare a rattlesnake to be a rocket ship?" Watching you trying to follow the bouncing ball is like watching two fat kids romp on a teeter totter, that is mounted on a trampoline, inside a bouncy house.

 

shall not extend further just means it carries no fines or jail time
So what does the good behavior part of article 3 mean?

 

What a load of crap. The very first line:

Article I, Section 1:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.​

If it's not granted in the constitution, they don't possess it. You're claiming that the Congress has the power to grant itself additional power, when only 3/4ths of the States, acting in concert, have that power.

It's not lost on many how desperately grasping, way too much of the Left is. You'all need to learn to quit trying to boss other folks around.

If Congress wants to clean up ethics, they can clean up all the corruption in their own ranks. It's not lost on many just how fast all these clowns get rich, once they are in office, and it sure as hell isn't on the salary we pay them.

'The median American citizen[4] saw his or her household net worth decrease from 2004 to 2012 by an annual rate of -0.94 percent, while members of Congress experienced a median annual increase of 1.55 percent. Congress saw a total increase of $316.5 million in assets held by all members in the study.[5]'

https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_in_...ors_and_Representatives_(Personal_Gain_Index)

 

Fake news. It means shall not extend further.

 

And where do you think the Office of Government Ethics, came from?

<Google Snip>
The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) was created by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and became a separate agency in 1989. Over the years, Congress has reauthorized the agency and enacted additional legislation related to the ethics program, including the STOCK Act in 2012.
https://www.oge.gov › web › oge.nsf
Ethics Legislation - OGE.gov
<End>

This proves my point, that Congress has jurisdiction, and the authority to do this (your tangential, unsupported, additional arguments, notwithstanding). Try to follow that simple connection, from your own, mental "bouncy house."

 

Not extend further than removal, it explains it. What are you claiming it means?

 

No it doesn't. It has power only over employees, not elected nor confirmed office holders.

Fake News. I simply asked you for the section of the Constitution that grants Congress this power you claim that they possess and you are suddenly up crap creek in a barbed wire canoe.

Too much of the Left hates the constitution because it prevents you from illegitimately bossing others around.

Congress is pretty corrupt. They should focus their efforts there, where they have the authority.

https://ballotpedia.org › Personal_Gain_Index_(U.S._Congress)
Personal Gain Index (U.S. Congress) - Ballotpedia
The average increase in net worth in the Top 100 was 114% per year. Of the "Top 100", 56 are Republicans, 43 are Democrats and one is an Independent. In total, the study looks at 320 Republicans, 296 Democrats and two Independents.


Median annual congressional growth:

Median annual citizen growth:

 

So your argument is that the Congress does not have power to make federal regulations? Or are you saying that Congress's Constitutional power to make laws, is limited in the Constitution, to specific subjects, and does not include, ethics rules?

 

So the purpose of every law that Congress is allowed to make, was pre-circumscribed, in the Constitution? Yours, is not just a false, but a tired, & tedious argument. So now I will ask you to produce the quote that says Congress can pass some law you support, regarding this or that, and you will claim that it is understood to fall under some other broad language. Same thing with dealing with government corruption: it is understood to be within Congress's purview, and your argument that if the Constitution doesn't say the words "ethics rules for the Supreme Court," then Congress is powerless, is the silliest argument I've ever seen, on the Constitution.

OK-- show us where the Constitution expressly says that. Even by your own stated standards, your counter arguments are nothing but Fake News.

 

You say that knowing that 50% of the country believe the justice department, the Democrat Party, the MSM, silicon valley, the universities are all corrupt. Lets have the institutions that 50% of the populace believe are corrupt police the one institution that does not appear to be fully captured by the insane left. Never needed to police when it when it was rubber stamping the leftist agenda, the very moment that the rubber stamping ends, the need for witch hunts of Supreme Court justices begins. WE SEE YOU.

 

The court went from a very high approval to a plummeting one. If the bleeding doesn’t stop it won’t be long before your kind takes their legacy below that of congress

 

Congress makes laws. Federal agencies make regulations.

Yes.

“The Code of Conduct, by its express terms, applies only to lower federal court judges,” Roberts wrote. “That reflects a fundamental difference between the Supreme Court and the other federal courts. Article III of the Constitution creates only one court, the Supreme Court of the United States, but it empowers Congress to establish additional lower federal courts that the Framers knew the country would need. Congress instituted the Judicial Conference for the benefit of the courts it had created."

The Constitution, not Congress, created the Supreme Court, and the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to regulate SCOTUS ethics. The reason you can't locate where in the Constitution that Congress was granted power to regulate the Supreme Court is because the Constitution does not grant Congress this power.

Congress can regulate the ethics of Congress though.

https://www.reuters.com › article › us-usa-congress-wealth-idUSN1330776120080313
Get elected to Congress and get rich: study | Reuters

'The personal wealth of members of the U.S. Congress has soared in recent years, leaving lawmakers on average far more well-to-do than most Americans as of 2006, said a study on Thursday.'

“Members of Congress, who are now paid about $169,000 annually, saw their net worths soar 84 percent from 2004 to 2006, on average.”

 

The Power of Congress is limited in the Constitution.

Fake news. Mine is a constitutional argument.

More fake news. Congress is neither empowered nor limited based on my support. That's your misconception, that Congressional power depends on your personal desires. Too much of the Left longs for tyrannical unchecked power, and that is forbidden by the Constitution, which is why too much of the Left hates the Constitution, it reflects their hatred for the American People, and their illegitimate desire to unjustly boss them around.

The Congress shall have Power:

1. To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
2. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

You asked for ONE example, and I gave you FIVE. If you want more examples, look them up yourself.

 

LOFL! So now you are a believer in pure democracy? If the majority of people feel a certain way, at any given time, that should be the basis of law? You know, BTW, that following that system would guarantee new gun regulations, and the availability of abortion for at least the first trimester (13 weeks), throughout the country, right?

But getting back to the subject at hand-- the majority of Americans do think the SCOTUS should have to follow a code of ethics:

< Google Snip>
Key findings: A majority of voters don't have trust or confidence in the Supreme Court. 67% of voters believe a code of ethics and a method for investigating violations would restore trust in the institution.May 1, 2023
https://endcitizensunited.org › new-...
New Poll: Voters Overwhelmingly Support Ethics Reforms for the Supreme Court
<End Snip>

 

LOL-- you are quoting Roberts, as to why Congress is not allowed to create ethics rules, for Roberts' Court? Luckily, there would be no conflict of interest, impelling him to recuse himself, right?

His argument, BTW, is specious, and not drawn at all, from Constitutional text. He quotes the reason that the Congress could create lower courts; but the concept that Congress can only establish ethical standards for those courts it creates, is purely Roberts' speculation-- our country's founding document, says no such thing.

What you quote from Roberts, about why *Congress does have a say in the courts that it creates, totally disproves your post's first contention:

Yet, Congress creates the agencies. Seems like a pretty meaningless distinction. Would you feel better, if Congress created an agency, just for the purpose of issuing these ethical guidelines, for the SCOTUS? I guarantee you, they will be consistent with the guidelines for lower court judges. What possible, reason-based objection could you have, to Justices following similar guidelines, as all other judges (and members of government)?

And Congress is given the power to judge Supreme Court Justices, in impeachment. Yet, they can't lay out for those Justices, the standard, by which they would be judged?

 

If not an ethics bill, at least something with legal teeth, so that the SC members don't get over zealous. Right now, with all their side gigs, it looks bad.

 

it's the impotent rantings of losers

 

So did Sotomeyer cross the line with encouraging people and organizations to buy her book. It all looks bad.

 

LOL-it means congress can establish INFERIOR courts (ones subordinate to the SUPREME COURT_

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

 

I understand, it is one thing to dislike their rulings, that happens, but the gifts just looks bad.