All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

If you go back to read the first comment posted trying to refute your claim, it was nothing but pure conjecture and opinion.
It shows the partisan ideology of the poster.

 

Ethics "rules," are statutory. That is, unless they are completely non-binding (like the statement that Chief Justice Roberts recently offered up), ethics rules represent laws. That is what allows for the enforcement of penalties. Only Congress has the power to make laws.

 

So?

What has been the case? SCOTUS has found that oversight is constitutional.

Right, everything is lousy, false, wrong for people like you.

 

OK only the courts have the powers to adjudicate laws so from now on when members of Congress are brought up on ethics charges, and we charge SCOTUS to bring those charges, there is a trial in front of the SCOTUS and they decide the sentence .

 

Not for the SCOTUS.

 

Depends on the high crime and misdemeanor. It was designed to be difficult so they do not serve under a threat from Congress to do their bidding.

 

The pass an amendment and change the 230 year president all because of some phony charges against Thomas by people who want him out for political purposes.

 

If they fear an enforceable code or ethics they are obviously corrupt.
Sorry, that's just the way it is.

 

A. It should be. Conservatives have ****ed this country up so bad it's not even funny anymore.

B. Corruption is what this is about.

C. I understand that makes it about conservatives.

 

This is what fascism looks like. Racism and fascism in the same thread. Congratulations.

 

Yea, everything that points out the imbecility of the maga is fascist.

 

That's not what the post was saying. The post is saying judges should be impeached solely due to politicial preferences. That's fascist and it's not even trying to hide it.

 

I’m asking a legit question. You respond with talking points. The CONSTITUTION is clear that a jurist can only hold office during good behavior. Who decides that? You either know, or don’t know. Pretending my question is partisan may say more about you than me.

 

Not sure about the fascism bit, but 'political preferences' are part of the USA Judiciary. That is the problem. Again, this is latter days exposing weaknesses in an Old Document drawn and designed to fit then times, long gone, and so flawed given today's political environment/reality.

 

Well, he is of the party where playing of the victim card deeply resonates.

 

You would probably welcome the police to search you and your premises without a warrant because "you have nothing to hide." Sorry, but they will find something if they are so inclined.

 

Everyone is susceptible to bias. That is what we have appeals and panels. But getting rid of half of the the judiciary that has a bias against your preferred political leaning is fascist.

 

I would suggest you take the 'preferred politics' out of the Judiciary, as it is Down Here.

 

I'm sure this has been addressed in 10 pages of discussion, but when you make an entity 'accountable' to another entity, they can be threatened and coerced into conforming to the oversight entity's preference. That's NOT what the SCOTUS is about.

I agree they need to be held to a morals and ethics line, but the measures need to be addressed internally, by the other Justices and no one else.

 

This doesn't make any sense.

 

That's completely in a different ballpark and you know it.

 

I ANSWERED YOU..............................

 

Yes. The only REASONABLE way to perceive this is that all the justices are guilty of something. It's the basis of American law to presume that all parties are guilty and it is by the grace of our supremely good and benevolent government that men not of the government are afforded the opportunity to prove their innocence...provided we can find a properly progressive court to hold them to account and not let them go crazy with accusations of political motivation. After all, accusations of political motivation are stupid in the extreme because politics is EVERYTHING in this world so, obviously, anyone that opposes political influence is a threat to the world at large.

 

You don't understand the Constitution and where it states what courts are overseen by the Congress?

Not for the Supreme Court by the Congress.

Nope the facts are not false or lousy for people like me, how about you?