All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

For the courts?

 

You are claiming Lutigg is wrong, you are the one that must prove your legal "chops", I've already linked to lutigg's....put up.

 

Ironic post, still waiting for your wiki bio so I can assess your legal opinion or I call B/S. Rack 'em up!

 

Here's my bio...

https://capitolhistory.org/us-capitol-history-for-teachers/united-states-constitution-annotated/

 

It RAISES more questions about the lack of ethical oversight in Congress and Senate. The level of corruption in the Senate, particularly committees, is atrocious. There is hard evidence indicating that 97 current members of Congress committed acts constituting insider trading or other unethical financial crimes. You'd be hard-pressed to find any Congressman or Senator without the type of severe conflicts of interest that'd result in disbarment for attorneys and judges.

This push by 15 Democrats to interfere with the judicial branch of government is yet another attempt to violate our constitutional separations of powers, and it's shamelessly hypocritical to claim that Clarence Thomas has a conflict of interest because his family vacations with his wealthy friend. Are judges across the country going to be disciplined for attending lavish events? Will Democrats call for the same ethical prohibitions for themselves? Will they charge each other with ethical violations? Will they hold themselves to the same standards? No. Their interests will continue to conflict with their legislative decisions, and then give themselves a raise.

If the Democrats want to legalize abortion, they should hold a vote. If they pass an abortion bill, then it's the law of the land per Dobbs. They won't hold a vote, because they fear the political impacts in some Democrat districts. They don't want to lose all the money and power that comes with the job. None of their rich friends will take them on vacation, because they can't help them in the legislature. This seems like an extremely serious conflict of interest.

 

Hahahahaha! Quote the exact passage that you penned and claim to have read.....I'll wait, until then Lutigg wipes the floor with your hyper partisan opine b/s.

 

Which decision are you referring to?

 

Marbury v. Madison. We studied it in Law School. The Supreme Court gets to decide the law of the land, and they decide whether Legislation is Constitutional. under Art. 1. They even have final say over decisions made by Courts established by the Legislature and Executive Branch. According to the Constitution, Supreme Court Justices serve as long as they exhibit “good behavior,” or face possible impeachment and removal for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Justice serve as long as they exhibit 'good behavior'. In 1805, a Supreme Court Justice was impeached by the legislature for impeachable offenses, but was acquitted by a Jeffersonian-packed Senate. The Legislative and Judiciary History indicates that removal of Justices should not be decided in 'political charged environments'. Is Congress not a politically charged environment? The Federal Codes established by Congress provides that the Judiciary should be impartial and diligent, but also independent. The Framers generally sought to structure the Constitution to ensure the separation of powers, and they expressed particular concern about potential interference with the Judiciary by the political branches.

The left is specifically calling out Clarence Thomas even though there are other Justices that have committed seemingly unethical acts. They are calling for a legislative court to decide unethical behavior under the guise that the members of this judiciary will 'independent' despite receiving their mandate from the politicians that established their powers. This wholly unconstitutional given that the Legislative Courts are governed by the Supreme Court under Art. 3.

 

My quote above links to an article covering an opinion presented to Congress that says otherwise. Regardless, all SCOTUS need to have an ethics code they must adhere to otherwise the highest bidder will prevail in most circumstances.

 

This argument is pure "what aboutism".

You want to find OTHER unethical behavior and point to THAT in order to protect the unethical behavior you DEFEND.

Nothing suggested so far could possibly be considered interference. In fact, suggesting that ethics interferes with behavior is a STARTLING admission of the depth of the problem.

As for various details
- you appear uninformed of the various cases where Thomas' failure to recuse was a clear breach of ethical behavior.
- this is about Thomas, not the Dobbs ruling.

 

Because the whole point for the talk was to a) some sort of formal ethics for Supreme Court Justices, b) updates on leak from SCOTUS, and c) who, if any will Chief Justice handle any violations of any ethics or violations.

 

Your claims have no merit. The political opinions presented to Congress are irrelevant. The opinion is unconstitutional. Here is my link is the Annotated Constitution from a Congressional Website.
https://constitution.congress.gov/b...oth of the,during their Continuance in Office.

This link below provides case law (note 4) that specifically discounts the subjective opinion presented to Congress. Article III, Section 1, also serves the essential purpose of protecting the independence of the judiciary and protecting litigants’ rights to have claims adjudicated by an impartial judge free from the influence of another branch of government. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 849 (1986). Further, the clause bars congressional attempts to eliminate the role of constitutional courts by transferring jurisdiction to non-Article III courts, which guards against the aggrandizement of power by one branch of government over another. Id.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-10-2-1/ALDE_00000684/

[W]hile one might find some support in early twentieth-century practice for the idea that the Clause constitutes an additional ground for removal of a federal judge,3 the modern view of Congress appears to be that good behavior does not establish an independent standard for impeachable conduct.4 In other words, the Good Behavior Clause simply indicates that judges are not appointed to their seats for set terms and cannot be removed at will; removing a federal judge requires impeachment and conviction for a high crime or misdemeanor. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-10-2-3/ALDE_00000686/

Congress has an ethical problem in which the highest bidder prevails in most circumstances. They should investigate themselves. They can start making the argument when they clean-up their own branch of government, but it would still be unconstitutional.

 

They are if they are codified under law.

 

What makes you think they will go "scrounging about". Do you think regular cops do that?

 

I'm 100% going after insider trading as well, no matter which side the perpetrator is on. I'm not saying investigate only republicans. Investigate them all and let the chips fall where they may.

 

Wrong. I'm making a constitutional argument within Art. 3 of the Constitution.

It seems you Democrats want to find unethical in the Supreme Court for political reason. Unconstitutional.

Unethical Behavior exists in Congress. There is strong evidence to indicate that 97 congressman engaged in insider trading. This is the type of behavior that would constitute a constitution for Supreme Court Justices and the President.

There's been numerous attempts by Congress to interfere with the Supreme Court's authority by appointing a legislative court to adjudicate ethical cases. This is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has authority over all cases whether it be made by the judicial, legislative, or executive (administrative) branch.

You appear to be uninformed. Clarence Thomas was under no obligation to recuse himself due to the conduct of his activist wife. There's been plenty of cases in which judges have not been subject to ethics violations due to the political activism of their family member.

 

Once more, laws cover more than just the criminal code. Statutory rules, procedures, and so forth, were all passed as laws. Therefore, the Congress certainly has the power, to pass a law, imposing a code of ethics, on the Supreme Court.

And your reply, is to imply that the SCOTUS might rule that this ethics code, on itself, was unconstitutional?

If you do not realize how ludicrous a suggestion that is, I don't know what to tell you.

 

This is how your game plays out. Congress oversteps their authority and tells the SCOTUS how they must behave. SCOTUS ignores it. A lawsuit is filed. Who is the final arbiter of all things in regards to whether “laws, statutory rules, procedures, and so forth” are constitutional? Oh, that’s right. The Supreme Court.

 

Congress has the power to investigate it. It's a far more pressing issue, and there's a mountain of evidence. Yet, Democrats in Congress are playing politics by going after a Conservative Justice based on little more than exaggerations and assumptions. It's ridiculous. They are ridiculous.

These Supreme Court Ethics laws have popped up over the last couple decades by one party or the other. Some have been egregiously unconstitutional.

 

Marbuy v. Madison. There's your case law. This is the case that leftists broadly interpreted in order to justify all the decisions that were clearly violative of the Constitution, whether right or wrong. A Legislatively-controlled ethics body governing the Supreme Court not only violates Marbury if the Justices reject as unconstitutional, but it violates Art. 3 of the Constitution.

The arguments made by Democrats are clearly incorrect based on the Links to the Annotated Constitution on the Congressional Website. They specifically indicate that their whining is nothing new, and their arguments are in contrast to Constitutional Law, Legislative History, and the Case Law.

 

They aren't dumb. They've seen how the DOJ was infiltrated and they are not blind.

 

You are completely wrong. If the SCOTUS ignores the other two branches, they have tools at their disposal, to enforce their opinion, under the Executive branch. Now, I don't think the members on the Court are so stupid (at least not most of them) as to view the endgame, as you portray it, in your post. But, for the sake of argument, if the Congress passed ethics rules for the Court, which were signed into law, by the President, and all the Justices signed a letter, saying they were going to ignore that law, because in their opinion, it was unconstitutional, then the President would order the Attorney General to remove them all from the bench-- by force, if necessary. How could the Justices stop this? They have no law enforcement arm.

The only fear of a Constitutional crisis, has always been of the President ignoring either the legislature, or the Supreme Court-- which has happened, in the past-- never of the Court, ignoring the duly passed laws, of the legislature. You see, it would not be at all, an unclear question, as to whether the legislature had the right to pass ethics rules, for the Court. So, ignoring these would be grounds for their impeachments. Again, this is just a hypothetical, because:
1) the Court understands that, if they were to push things so far, that it came to shove, they would have no physical weight, in that contest. All their authority, derives from the people's belief in the Court's authority, as outlined in the Constitution. IOW, the only backup, the Court would have, would be the mass protests of the people.

If, however, the people have lost faith in the Court's credibility, then those Justices would be S.O.L, if the other branches decided to replace them, with a whole new set.

2) With their long sought, conservative majority, the Republicans would never agree to even impeach Thomas (probably ever, but definitely not, with a Democrat in the WH, and in the Senate majority), much less the whole lot of them.

3) It seems unlikely that Republicans will even force an ethics code on the Court, though it is notable that a couple of Senate Republicans, in today's hearing, encouraged the Court (that is, its Chief Justice) to rethink its view on this. Those Senators certainly realize what an anchor chained to them, it would be, if they are seen in the public's eyes, as being the sole defenders of a Court that has lost the trust of the American people.

If we continue getting drips of what most Americans recognize as highly questionable ethical conduct, while the SCOTUS continues to refuse to adopt a mandatory, enforceable code of ethics, for itself, Dems absolutely will try to legislate one. If then, on top of the unpopularity the GOP is already riding-- because of their being so out of synch with the popular mainstream views on both abortion and gun control-- so that protecting an unaccountable High Court, gets added to the Republican image, in voters' minds, their defeat in 2024 will be of epic proportions!

 

If the *******s in Congress had any guts and intergrity they would impeach all 9 of the scumsuckers and kick their asses off the court.

 

Yeas, but the Republican controlled Senate is not going to convict any of their own.

 

And it applies to all three branches. Congress can't place laws on the court alone.