All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

Basically, this thread is in a clown world where intimidating Supreme Court Justices has failed to get the political outcomes they desire. So now they're trying to delegitimize the court with the expressed goal of replacing Republican nominated justices or giving Biden full authority to hand pick an entirely new liberal court. That's the mission and @Gateman_Wen is not even trying to hide it. It's fascism 101.

 

Why is a group of guys (commission) scrounging around the Supreme Court looking for stuff and checking thins out any different from the police scrounging around your house looking for stuff and checking things out???

 

Congress does under the impeachment clause.

 

Some is constitutional, some is not constitutional. No oversight of the Supreme Court in constitutional (other than congress is allowed to observe).

 

Good luck I tried.........

 

Congress doesn't over see the President or Vice-President either they are all co-equal.

 

You ask a rhetorical question that provides your belief and so answer and does so using a defective analogy that is illogical.

1. The Supreme Court of the US is not your house. It is a judicial decision making body that at the present time is not bound to any legally mandatory set of rules of conduct. The issues we are talking about are the conduct of its members.

2. Your house is divided into two legal concepts one being real (immoveable), the other personal (moveable). The laws, regulations attached to both deal with right to ownership of inanimate objects.

3. Comparing laws regarding the right of ownership to property and the ethical standards the Supreme Court of Justices should follow are not the same in law or subject matter.

4. The rights of what police can do and not do in a search of property has to deal with criminal law, the ethical conduct of Judges including Supreme Court of the United States Justices are not the same. Supreme Court Justices were asked by Chief Roberts to voluntarily follow the same code of Ethics as all other federal court Judges as they are the only Judges with no ordered mandate to follow those ethics. They all were following them until Thomas began brazenly ignoring them and is now being imitated by two other Justices and the Chief Justice appears to condone this behaviour by refusing to address it. Police on the other hand are mandated by laws as to how to behave and unlike Clarence Thomas follow rules of conduct or face severe consequences.

5. Finally the ethical misconduct Thomas has done was deliberately hidden and then when exposed publicly was not done as a result of a police investigation but by volunteer public interest groups receving information from civilians disgusted at the behaviour of Thomas.

The issue with Thomas is not about crime. No one can prove nor will they probably be able to prove he received a bribe.

What we are talking about is his choosing to place himself in positions where he has not only the appearance of conflict of interest but also real conflicts of interest which compromise the appearance of neutrality and therefore honesty and integrity of the highest court of the land.

This thread and others have seen people for politically partisan reasons deliberately deflect from his ethical transgressions and refuse to acknowledge them labelling anyone who raises them as persecuting his conservative ideology or skin colour.

That is where we are at. The majority of Americans know this has nothing to do with his legal biases or skin colour but his choosing to accept payments and personal benefits, refuse to disclose business transactions he should have and refuse to recuse himself from cases he has had a conflict of interest in.

Never in the history of the United States legal system as any Judge let alone one sitting on the bench of the highest court of the land committed so many blatant ethical transgressions let alone send out the message that while other courts must by mandated law follow a code of ethical standards, Supreme Court Justices can break those very ethical standards. It sends a message of utmost hypocrisy and double standards thereby undermining and making a mockery of the fundamental concept of the principle that NO ONE is above the law or above the same expected set of professional codes of conduct legal or not.

Anyone who is entrusted in the position of protecting the rights of others has NO right to act in a manner that puts their own personal benefits and beliefs first.

We live in a time where people believe if you are not convicted of a crime you can do whatever the phack you feel like with no consequence and even then, if someone tries to charge you with a crime, its because of your political beliefs not the actions you engaged in. The absurdity is accepting personal benefits from people is not a political belief its an individual moral choice of behaviour defined as hedonism. Hedonism is not attached to any specific political ideology its a belief system people of all religions, races, ethnicities, ages, etc., might engage in.

Ironically hedonism is something that those who support Thomas because they think he is a good Christian can't seem to grasp is the anti-thesis of the values they think they believe in and that they think he promotes through how he applies law.

 

Why is that?

 

Or they don't trust the "let's do this" pitch to be what occurs and don't want it to devolve into the 100% certain result of purely partisan ****ery that will be played in a game of "turn about is fair play" in perpetuity ala the borking.

 

Yes! A term limit is in order.

 

I am not "the law" in any sense of the word. I am stating my opinion, not a legal ruling.

 

who's doing that?

 

Why are you guys all making so many excuses? Just because the court lean conservative right now? I'm not saying this is a partisan thing. One of the reasons I want oversight is some "mistakes" in the Brown-Jackson disclosures and she's as far left as you could hope to be.

Would your tune be different if the court leaned left?

Mine wouldn't.

 

It would appear a well respected Constitutional retired judge and scholar has a much different take. Worthy of a good read and good to know!
@Wild Bill Kelsoe too,
""Congress “indisputably has the power under the Constitution” to “enact laws prescribing the ethical standards applicable to the nonjudicial conduct and activities of the Supreme Court of the United States,” Judge Luttig said in a written statement presented to the Judiciary Committee.""
Prominent Retired Judge Calls for Ethics Rules for Supreme Court Justices

 

I thought the ethics assessment committee you wanted to sic on the Supreme Court........

 

Congress has the power to pass a law that applies to all three branches. Congress doesn't have the authority to pass a law that applies to one other branch alone. Your little retired judge is a ****ing moron, or he's a liar.

 

SCOTUS has ruled that congress has oversight over the executive branch to assure it is following congress' laws -- nothing else, and nothing over the Supreme Court..

 

I have no idea what this means.

It is bound by the impeachment clause of the Constitution, not by any "blue ribbon" panel of appointed experts (has beens under great pressure.)

True. One is entirely in the Constitution. The other is all over federal and state law..

The thread is not about police with a warrant. It is about the voluntary willingness to let police in because one "has nothing to hide."

 

True. I said in another post that congressional oversight is limited to assuring the executive branch is following congress' laws.

 

Interesting that you think you are better informed than this judge. One would think that you would support more transparency and ethical standards for EVERY SCOTUS, all they need in Congress is for 10 R senators to sign on.....
Here is Littig's wiki bio, pls provide a link to your......thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Luttig

 

That I might agree with. Surprise!!!

 

[QUOTE="Hey Now, post: 1074189577, member: 103290"""Congress “indisputably has the power under the Constitution” to “enact laws prescribing the ethical standards applicable to the nonjudicial conduct and activities of the Supreme Court of the United States,” Judge Luttig said in a written statement presented to the Judiciary Committee.""[/QUOTE]No, they absolutely do not. The can probably prescribe ethics for Federal District and Appellate courts but not in the least for SCOTUS. Judge Luttig is unquestionably not correct (not uncommon for judges).

 

Link to your wiki bio and law licence as well, tks!

 

The common response of a no-op post. Gimme your link.

 

That dude is full of **** if he claims Congress can pass laws that only apply to the Supreme Court. Or, he a lying sack of ****, because he knows it isn't true.

He's got to be a total idiot if he thinks that one house can make laws...lol

I'm all for transparency. Let's start with Congress. They can set the example.