Senate Democrats Announce Vote To Advance Supreme Court Ethics Bill

Yeah but that is our politics today. That behavior isn't new either. A better way would be to have a schedule for SC judges appointments, e.g., a time limit, a vote within 3-4 months.

 

Pay to play for an invitation to Thomas's Christmas party too?
Was this a private party given by the Ginni and Clarence Thomas?
List of lawyers who sent money and their connection to Thomas in link.

'Lawyers with supreme court business paid Clarence Thomas aide via Venmo'

"Several lawyers who have had business before the supreme court, including one who successfully argued to end race-conscious admissions at universities, paid money to a top aide to Justice Clarence Thomas, according to the aide’s Venmo transactions. The payments appear to have been made in connection to Thomas’s 2019 Christmas party.

The payments to Rajan Vasisht, who served as Thomas’s aide from July 2019 to July 2021, seem to underscore the close ties between Thomas, who is embroiled in ethics scandals following a series of revelations about his relationship with a wealthy billionaire donor, and certain senior Washington lawyers who argue cases and have other business in front of the justice.

Vasisht’s Venmo account – which was public prior to requesting comment for this article and is no longer – show that he received seven payments in November and December 2019 from lawyers who previously served as Thomas legal clerks. The amount of the payments is not disclosed, but the purpose of each payment is listed as either “Christmas party”, “Thomas Christmas Party”, “CT Christmas Party” or “CT Xmas party”, in an apparent reference to the justice’s initials'.

cont:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...mas-aide-venmo-payments-lawyers-supreme-court

 

2019: Hey everybody, send $20 to help cover food costs for our Christmas party!
2023: Seven people sent money. We don't know how much, but it must be bad!

 

And those would be rules for congress in their determination for impeachment. Can’t force the USSC to follow them. First though, you gotta get it through congress. Then, you’ll have to get a ton of congress people to agree to the impeachment and removal(impeaching is nothing. It’s the removal that’s worth something as that’s a “conviction”. An impeachment is an accusation, or a “charge” laid down). Good luck on the 2/3rds or whatever is needed. Too much partisanship on Capitol Hill.

 

FFS man. You cannot actually support the fact that their are donors literally buying houses for SC justices ad think that even a little bit ethical ?

 

LOL is overused on the internet. But, in this case I legitimately laughed out loud. The Constitution doesn't give Congress "the power to do anything that is not assigned to the states." I can't imagine why anyone who got passed fifth-grade social studies would make such an absurd claim.

 

Doesn't this person claim to be an attorney? Holy Cow!

 

The impeachment process.

That is a process they have to go through every time, and can go through for any reason or no reason if they've got the numbers in the correct positions.
That doesn't give them the right to tell them anything else. Only to impeach on a case by case basis.

 

He does? I didn't recall that-I know Joe Biden is an attorney even though he (like Hillary and Kamala) all flunked the bar the first time around

 

I could be mistaken.

 

I recall a lefty claiming a law degree-cannot recall who

 

So if you have no process to actually account for the $20 lunch, how do you account for the larger donations ?

We have now found out that Scalia took a ride on a Private Jet to Alaska for a hunting junket that he didnt report…..

Do you honestly think these people that are buying friendship ?

The Republican Party is just NUTS right now. They support a totalitarian government in Russia over a democratic country, they support private entities buying legislation, they support taking away rights from women, they think a free and fair election was not fair (with literally no evidence), they support a mob who actively rioted on Jan6th in the seat of government, they are taking away rights and actively demonizing a sector of the population because they are gay, they make up things to be outraged on a daily basis

Folks, this is not your dads Republican Party, this is just lunacy right now

Think about this for just one second….A majority of the Republican Party, who call themselves “patriots” actually supports installing Donald Trump no matter what the results of the election were…..

 

That's an odd way of saying "Respecting the separation and balance of power".

 

Wow. That is NOT at all what the Constitution says.

It says congress has ONLY the power to do what the constitution grants them, everything not listed is the rights of the States.

How you can spin that around when it's in plain english in the Constitution is astounding.

 

Our founders would be rolling over in their graves at the thought that there would one day be Americans who believed the system of government they set up created an omnipotent Congress.

 

No it's not. It's a misstatement. You claimed his response didn't reference the Constitution, when it did, and it did so accurately.

Now Congress does have authority over Congressional Ethics, and they really should exercise that authority.

https://www.newsweek.com › how-nancy-pelosi-net-worth-vastly-increased-while-house-speaker-1762361
How Nancy Pelosi's net worth vastly increased while House Speaker

'D.C.-based nonprofit OpenSecrets.org estimated Pelosi's net worth at $115 million in 2020, a rise of $41 million since 2004 - the first year OpenSecrets began tracking members' personal finances.'

 

The libertarian in me cringes at the lack of understanding of the constitution. Both teams are doing it, now.

The growing support for increased state surveillance over their fellow Americans is rather disturbing.

 

This is an unserious proposal designed to get support from the insurrectionist liberals who don't care about separation of powers.

1. Congress cannot tell the Supreme Court they must do something by a deadline.
2. Congress cannot make the Supreme Court beholden to judges of lower courts.
3. Congress cannot set rules for Supreme Court recusal.

None of this makes any sense whatsoever to a person even vaguely familiar with our Constitution. This is a political ploy for their uneducated base or those who want to usurp a branch of government.

Two possible outcomes:

1. Democrats cry, "those evil Republicans won't let us knowingly violate the Constitution in an effort to delegitimize the Supreme Court because they won't let our laws and Biden's actions that violate the Constitution stay in effect."

2. The Supreme Court reminds Congress that they have no authority and Democrats cry wolf while saying they want to pack the court with liberal justices that will let them violate the Constitution and they hate Manchin for not letting them.

Both outcomes cater to their uneducated base.

 

One party stands for the Constitution and separation of powers while the other party stands for violating the Constitution. We know where you stand.

 

There is no mechanism in the constitution to allow Congress to make rules for the other two branches. The 535 corrupt assclowns in Congress should worry about their own failings.

There are two sides, here, and it’s not R v D. It’s those who understand separation of powers v those who don’t.

 

Thomas’s law clerks paid their fellow law clerk their head cost at their annual Christmas party? And, you accuse Thomas of a “pay to play” despite not being paid? Really?

 

many statists think the federal government can do anything it wants unless it is specifically banned-but then again-they often ignore this (such as the second amendment for example) His claim was an absolute gut buster

 

Not in the least, because there is a code of ethics, for Congress. Get a clue-- we are not talking about holding the Court to a high standard: but to at least some standard (as with Congress-- though that is obviously dependent, moreso now, than had formerly been the case, upon the affiliation of the ethics violator, vis a vis the Party in the majority).

 

OK, so I guess the well educated, law degreed veterans of the Senate, like Dick Durbin & Sheldon Whitehouse, should have checked with a real authority-- like you, for instance-- first.

 

Talk about "spinning around:" you just said the same thing as me, but using different words. And, LOL, your different phrasing, makes you think that the two wordings represent opposites!

Look at my words, you'd quoted:


DEFinning said: ↑
The Constitution gives them the power to do anything that is not assigned to the states' purview (or barred to the Congress), in the Constitution.


In your own definition, any power not assigned to the Federal government, "is the rights (sic) of the States." So then, do you not understand how anything that is not assigned to the States' purview, would be the powers of the Federal government? These are two ways of saying the same thing.

Yes, I see why you think they are different, but that is because you are taking my comment out of context. To simplify it, let us think not about the division between state & federal government, because that had not been the point of the dispute; rather think of the powers of any form of government. My argument was that the "government" did not have only whatever specific powers were enumerated, but in practice has any power except those, the Constitution says that government does not have: to interfere with individual freedoms. The other side of the argument was basically that anything not specified as a power of Congress (that is, not subject to law) was automatically a personal liberty. Can you follow how those two things, are actually opposites?