All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

The Chief Justice doesn't answer to Congress. If they want to know all that, they can go see him.

 

Your opinion has even less merit, Luttig's opine on the specific topic I linked has much more relevance because it's realistic, logical and avoids the appearance of impropriety. What scares you so much about ensuring that SCOTUS has a basic minimum standard of ethics? In addition you have posted a wall of text while conflating and deflecting from the very specific topic I am discussing, you are discussing removal of a justice, my link is discussing a basic minimum ethics standard, focus please. Give yourself some elusive merit since the honor system died with The Greatest Generation and today we simply have people in high office lining their personal pockets due to their service of the people.

 

Please paste up something from the COTUS that says that the SCOTUS cannot declare such an obvious attack on separation of powers unconstitutional.

 

OK, my link is called the Constitution of the U.S.

 

Any one of about a half dozen or so.

 

Have you ever read the damn constitution?

 

What do you suppose they will do? Rent a conference room some place and sit around reading newspapers and watching TV? Irregular cops do that, and so do regular cops ask if they can look around and search for stuff, but that misses the point which was the poster's welcoming such action with open arms because he "has nothing to hide."

 

Good thought, but the issue of the thread is who should be given the authority to do such investigations?

 

They do oversee the various departments and Cabinet officials which THEY CREATED just like the lower federal judges they created.

 

No they need a 2/3's vote and then 3/4's of the states.

 

Nah. Congress just passes a law that includes a clause where they just take some of the supreme court's authority for their own.

 

No, it’s already been shown that they are hiding their abuses of power, so that’s why we are calling for holding them to account.
How many scandals do you need to discover before you think they should be held accountable?

 

They would simply put on their black robes and wave copies of the Constitution at the tanks and armed military at their gate. Then the congress and/or executive branch would snicker and crack jokes about the ancient Constitution and would have the Justices arrested and thrown in prison. Stalin would smile with glee from his grave.

You are correct. As Andrew Jackson informed the court, the president has an army and they do not.

 

In some ways, Uncle Tom was far better than that piece of crap that is on the SCOTUS.

 

Congress should stop funding the court.

 

Congress is now the bottomboy of the federal government. The American people do not trust th e crooks. The SCOTUS is the only branch that a super majority of Americans still trust. Whenever the SCOTUS spanks Congress, their job, public confidence in the system surges.

https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ent-falls-below-a-majority-for-the-first-time

 

Great idea!

VOTE DP TO DEFUND THE SUPREME COURT!

Make sure the DP pays you for that one.

 

Here is what he said

....The nation should never have reason to question the ethical conduct of the Supreme Court. It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court, and of each Justice who serves on the Court, to ensure that there never even be such a question raised.

Thus, there should never come the day when the Congress of the United States is obligated to enact laws prescribing the ethical standards applicable to the non-judicial conduct and activities of the Supreme Court of the United States, even though it indisputably has the power under the Constitution to do so, but paradoxically, does not have the power to require the Court to prescribe such standards for itself. p. 4 4

But if that day were ever to come, it would hardly be a constitutional crisis or anything of the sort. The non-judicial conduct and activities of the Supreme Court are subject to law, just like every other citizen’s conduct and activities are subject to the law. Much of the Justices’ non-judicial conduct and activities are of course subject to law today.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Respectfully, the Congress should not want, or want to have, to prescribe ethical standards of conduct for the Supreme Court. By the same token, respectfully, the Supreme Court should not want Congress to prescribe ethical standards for the Court, either. For its part, the Supreme Court should want, without quibble, to subject itself to the highest possible professional and ethical standards that would render the Court beyond reproach, because such would ensure to the fullest extent possible that the Court is always beyond reproach in its non- judicial conduct and activities....

to prescribe: recommend (a substance or action) as something beneficial.
"marriage is often prescribed as a universal remedy"
https://www.google.com/search?q=def...rome..69i57.8421j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

They can write up something, it's the enforcement where the separation of powers and Constitution come in as both Chief Justice Rehnquist and Roberts have previously stated.

 

Heck then it could stop funding the President and then they could just run the whole government!

 

True. The point was that congress cannot oversee a person (especially the president and vice president), only persons' handling of and carrying out the laws.

 

So you have nothing?

 

Adultery isn't illegal here unless you're in the military.
Under 18 is gross and so far as I'm aware actually illegal

Dude literally 9 justices said it was a bad idea. That's both major parties amigo.

 

Have you? The Constitution clearly states which courts the Congress creates and oversees can you point me where that says the Supreme Court?

Here for you pleasure

Sheldon Whitehouse vs. the Supreme Court
One witness dismantles the Senator’s plan to control the Justices.

....One piece of the hearing worth watching is the seven-minute opening statement by Thomas Dupree Jr., a former principal deputy assistant attorney general. A Republican witness, Mr. Dupree assessed a bill sponsored by Mr. Whitehouse—the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act.

“Section two of the bill orders the Supreme Court to issue a code of conduct governing the Justices, and to establish procedures for disciplinary investigations of Justices,” he said. This would infringe the separation of powers, treating the High Court “no different than the Department of Agriculture or any federal agency that can be commanded by Congress.”

Worse, the bill says the Court must create procedures, Mr. Dupree said, under which people could “file complaints alleging that a Justice has engaged in conduct—on or off the bench, and apparently at any point in their lifetime—that the complainant believes may have ‘undermined the integrity of the Supreme Court.’” Complaints would go to a panel of appeals-court judges “who would then sit in judgment of the accused Justice.” That is an invitation to politically motivated allegations.

Then there are Congressional mandates on recusal. “Adopting these measures would open the door to a tidal wave of disqualification motions in virtually every important case,” Mr. Dupree said. “Round one in all the big-ticket constitutional cases would be litigation over which Justices are even eligible to hear the case. Here, too, it is hard to imagine anything more corrosive to public faith in the Supreme Court.”...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sheldo...jr-dick-durbin-838b5c70?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

You can view his entire statement here starting at 56:15

https://www.c-span.org/video/?527741-1/judiciary-hearing-supreme-court-ethics

 

LMAO...I would love to see Congress do something that stupid.

 

Nothing I'm going to waste my time looking up.