Senate Democrats Announce Vote To Advance Supreme Court Ethics Bill

No, your comment, here quoted, is the misstatement. My comment did not claim that Roberts "didn't reference the Constitution"-- I explained how his reference was inapplicable or, at best, speculative. But you left out that part of my quote.

I said this:

DEFinning said: ↑
...
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.
<End Quote>

But, instead of my clearly explained argument, you only quoted the first sentence:

His argument, BTW, is specious, and not drawn at all, from Constitutional text.

And are now basing your untruth, that I claimed "he didn't reference the Constitution," on that over abridgement of my comments, which had clearly gone on to say that yes, Roberts referenced Congress's ability to establish lower courts, but not the Supreme Court. However, the dispute is not over the "establishing" of the Supreme Court-- it is over Congress's ability to impose ethics rules.

Those are two different things. Roberts did not reference any part of the Constitution ADDRESSING ETHICS RULES. He was equating the two things; but he gave no Constitutional justification for that. This was nothing more than his personal presumption, that those two things would operate in tandem; that is, if you hadn't created the Court, then you couldn't legislate any rules about the gifts its judges accepted, or their need to recuse themselves from hearing cases in which a Justice may have a conflict of interest. But the Constitution does not say that.


This is only one of your quotes, misrepresenting my comments-- which all of your abbreviated quotes, did. So it is a sad joke, that you have the nerve to complain. about the tongue-in-cheek opening of my post, in which I purposely, and obviously, distort your meaning, to show you how objectionable is your practice, before asking you to refrain from doing that anymore, to my quotes-- which you have yet to apologize for, or even admit to having done. Does it then, come as a surprise to you, that I do not care to hear about your hypocritical complaints?

 

And I can't imagine why anyone, having read the utter nonsense that you, on a regular basis, post on this board, would give a crap about your opinion, of any of their comments.

In fact, your acting as if there might be the least chance that one might feel dishonored by your reproval, is ample cause to make anyone LOL.

 

Exactly my perspective on this, they are fully inverted over the cliff.

 

Source?

LOL-- anything a Justice does, is defacto beyond reproach. They are above the law. So, you would contend, they could not be tried, for accepting a bribe? If so, I repeat: source?

You mean, I take it, to a person like you, rather than a know nothing, like Senators Durbin or Whitehouse, who were quoted, and are the two leading this charge? After all, Whitehouse only graduated from Yale, and from the University of Virginia Law School, served as Rhode Island's U.S. Attorney, and then as the state's Attorney General, before his election to the Senate, where he has risen to be the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Sub-committee on Federal Courts and Oversight. How that must pale, in comparison with your own bona fides in law.

And, of course, how authoritative is one's opinion, would be all that was relevant here, since, as in the previous case, you can point to nothing in the Constitution, specifically backing up your claim. So this is only your own interpretation, stated as a fact.

LOL.

 

They would be rolling over in their graves with despair at what MAGA has done to try to destroy what they created.

 

As if our founders would approve of the largesse accepted by Justices Thomas or Alito.

 

Still have Trump on the mind? Anything I can do to help?

 

You think they would scrap our system of government over Thomas? Really? No seriously, really?

 

The US Constitution. You should read it one day. It's a great document.

They are not "above the law." They can be charged with any crime that any of us can be charged with. I have no idea why you're talking about bribes here. Your article says their potential ethics violations would be decided by judges from lower courts. That's against the Constitution.

I'm willing to bet Durbin and Whitehouse know forcing these changes through Congressional action is unconstitutional. It's a ploy designed to rile up their uneducated base. And I'd also wager that any final bill won't have teeth and will be ceremonial in nature since attempts to force it aren't constitutional.

 

Congress does not get to be the ethics oversight for themselves and then also get to tell the SCOTUS how their ethics should be defined. Doesn't work that way.

 

That code of ethics was written by Congress, not the Supreme Court or the President. And Congress enforces it.

"Get a clue?"

You made the point against yourself and you didn't even realize it.

Also, the OCE is supposedly non-partisan, but it has little bite. The rules and enforcement are weak allowing ethics violations like Nancy Pelosi's insider trading.

Likewise, the Supreme Court has its own ethics rules.

 

Meaningless posturing, The left is upset the latest spate of rulings didn't go their way. Sound & fury signifying nothing, beyond libs with their knickers in a twist. Big yawn.

 

No.

You are saying anything not assigned to the States is within the purview if the fed.

That is not the same as:

The constitution grants specific enumerated powers to the fed, and if it not listed it falls on the States.

The constitution doesn't grant any power to the states specifically except EVERYTHING not enumerated to the fed.

The Constitution is a limiting document from the feds perspective. Not the other way around.

 

Fake news. He accurately referred to the exact constitutional text that is dispotive.

See, there you go again. It's like you have memorized terms that sound cool, but, you don't really understand their meaning.

Again, you missed the point. Inferior Courts are created by Congress and therefore are not a co-equal branch, like the Supreme Court is.

The Constitution simply does not grant the Congress the Power to impose ethical standards on another Co-Equal branch, but, it certainly grants Congress the power to imposed ethics on Insider Trading by Congress.

https://www.nytimes.com › interactive › 2022 › 09 › 13 › us › politics › congress-stock-trading-investigation.html
Stock Trades Reported by Nearly a Fifth of Congress Show Possible ...

'Sep 13, 2022 Under a 2012 law known as the STOCK Act, members of Congress are allowed to buy and sell stocks, bonds and other financial instruments as long as they do not trade on inside information and...'

You keep cutting out my sources references to unethical behavior by Congress.

Repetitive and unfounded.

Sad. You've lost the plot and so are descending into personal attacks. That's essentially a surrender, which I accept with grace.

 

You're connecting dots that don't exist.

The 10th Amendment is clear:

In reality, the federal government is VERY limited in what they are authorized to do. The fed has been usurping power from the states since almost our founding, and it's wrong.

So what powers does the Constitution grant the President about courts?

Simple:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


That's it. There is no language in the Constitution regard authority of Congress over the courts. None.

 

So you see nothing wrong with the behavior of Thomas? And really, what is the problem with oversight on an ethics front?

 

Bigger yawn.

 

The above bolded statements are false and shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of our Constitution. After being corrected, you said the following:

This statement is also false and again, shows a complete lack of understanding of basic civics. Your initial comment makes no reference to the "federal government." You are talking about the different powers of Congress and the States. Now you're claiming whatever is not "assigned" to the States belongs to the "federal government." You're utterly confused.

No, you're not saying the same thing. Part of your problem here is that you're falling all over the place, contradicting yourself and using incorrect terms, then claiming you meant something else. Now you're claiming you weren't talking about the separation of powers between Congress and the States when you obviously were. And then you bring up "personal liberty" which has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation or any prior post you have made. Then you started changing your argument about Congress to the federal government which doesn't make any sense in context of your prior posts. Your initial statement was false. Completely false. There is no realm in which it is even slightly accurate. And, there is no possible interpretation that benefits you.

Your claim was that the Constitution gives them [Congress] the power to do ANYTHING that is not assigned [sic] to the states (or barred to the Congress??? [whatever that means]). You then say "in the Constitution" redundantly for no apparent reason. This is false. Very false. Not even close to being true. And shows that you have no concept of separation of powers whatsoever. Congress does not have the power to do whatever isn't "assigned" [sic] to the states or "personal liberty," and I do not know what would possess you to make such a claim.

 

Because no law has ever been passed that violates the constitution? LMAO.

Can you point to the exact words in the constitution that give Messrs Durbin and Whitehouse the ability to impose rules on the SCOTUS? It'll be something along the lines of, "Congress shall have the power to impose ethic rules on the other two branches....."

And, while Congress may have ethics rules in place, I can assure you that there is nothing ethical happening in Congress. Not a damn thing.

 

Ironically, their proposed legislation is aimed at modifying Chapter 16 Title 28, which even other Democrats have long admitted does not apply to the Supreme Court. In fact, there have been a lot of resolutions stating this code does not apply to the Supreme Court, but they wanted to ask the Supreme Court to follow the code Congress set for lower courts. There's a reason the law doesn't apply to Supreme Court Justices. You know why. I know why. Someone else doesn't get it though... paging @DEFinning

Congresswoman Norton graduated from a more prestigious law school than Durbin and Whitehouse, and was a tenured law professor at Georgetown. She has been pushing a resolution that merely asks the Supreme Court to follow the guidelines of the lower courts... because she knows it's unconstitutional to try to force them to.

https://www.washingtoninformer.com/norton-floats-resolution-calling-for-supreme-court-ethics-code/
https://norton.house.gov/media/pres...ution-calling-supreme-court-adopt-ethics-code

 

Democrats are trying to impose unconstitutional control over a fellow co-equal branch. That pretty much says it all, about that party.

Justice Alito Explains The Constitution To Despotic Democrat Lawmakers:



“Congress did not create the Supreme Court... No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court - period.”

Article III, section 1 of the Constitution:

“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court..."

 

LOL.

Well, there's plenty of not understanding the constitution running rampant in DC, and it's not just the blue ties in Congress.

 

“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court..."

The Constitution prevents tyranny. These Leftists understand it, they just hate any just restraint on their ability to wield illegitimate power. It's only 13 words, 8 of which are single syllable, it's not a problem of reading comprehension with these folks.

 

This is so hypocritical. How about a Presidential Ethics Bill?

 

Congress should worry about the nastiness that is their own two chambers, before throwing accusations at another branch's dirty laundry.