Then who exactly is supposed to be the check on the courts? Is that not precisely the domain of the legislative wing of govt? That’s like some basic civics shit.
There’s a key trick to evaluating statements by the republican justices… re-read anything they say from the lens of they are completely full of shit and have zero integrity.
These are not serious people. Don’t discuss them as if they are. Tell your own representatives that they need to act on this LOUDLY or they will lose your vote.
I feel the supreme court is playing a game of fuck around and find out here. Hate to say it but supreme court ethics has pretty bipartisan support. These people are entrusted to be above that kind of behavior, but it’s already been shown that every member of the court has something to hide. If they’re not willing to self police themselves we will police them ourselves.
The liberal justices surely aren’t vocal enough about the need for ethics oversight (likely because they’ve been threatened by other justices in the majority and told that if they stay aligned with the fascist judges on some of this that the judges will vote on the side of the actual merit of the cases for some of the “lesser” cases that come through the court".
There is no room for these blanket false equivalencies though.
Sorry but I think the whole of the supreme court is rotten to the core as it stands, and I think some ethics are in dire need. If you think the liberal justices aren’t getting kickback, sweetheart deals, or vacations from wealthy billionaires, you’re kidding yourself. They’re going to push back on ethics because it might expose the true scale of the corruption in the supreme court. So you can give them a pass if you want, but the whole point of lifetime appointment was to rise above politics and currying favor, and as I see it in my life time the supreme Court has done little to improve people’s lives, but corporations have benefited to a great deal. I don’t think for a moment I think Congress is any better they’re rotten too, but they at least have to report their gifts. Like I said the bear f****** minimum.
Show me where the liberal judges are getting kick backs please. Otherwise that’s all just nonsense speculation to make them look as bad as the actual corrupt republican ones are.
Here I found an article that sums up my thoughts, but the liberals silence and even signing on with the conservatives saying that they don’t need ethics makes them complacent in the act. This is the same argument about bad cops just one bad apple, but people never finish the saying, spoils the bunch. The bunch that sits on the supreme court are a rotten to the core and if you think they’re not you’re deluding yourself.
Idk if this points to them being complicit. But beyond that, there is a biiiiiig difference between staying silent and taking actual kickbacks. I do think there’s no way in hell a government body can police itself on this though. And I think congress needs to rein this in. Sadly, I’m sure what we will see, and we are, is the republican body absolutely refusing to help push legislation forward to address this. I do think it’s also healthy to have some skepticism towards anyone in the political theater. But let’s be clear, roberts coming out today and saying that no one gets to tell SCOTUS what ethics to follow is a huggge red flag for what this court has become under justices placed there from underhanded tactics.
Giving in to threats or agreeing to some kind of quid pro quo system would also be corruption. If some justices are threatening others, that should absolutely be exposed and supreme court justices are in one of the best positions to do that exposing.
They’re all multi-millionaires, and care much, much more about increasing their wealth than they do about doing meaningful good. Remember when we found out both Republican and Democratic senators exploited their classified COVID briefings to make money on stocks?
This is just… wow. The breathtaking arrogance of it.
It’s not often these swine can actually get a visceral reaction from me anymore, but wow. Time to get back to work on that Novelty Giant Cigar Chopper I’m working on.
Hey what do originalists think about the power of judicial review? What do they think about that section of the Constitution and the Framers’ intent behind delegating that power to the Supreme Court?
The Constitution declares that the House has the sole power to impeach, and the Senate the power to try the case. It does not limit the scope of such impeachments. Alito is just as subject to impeachment as any other member of the Federal Government.
edit: to cut to the chase, judicial review is not in the Constitution (go ahead, go find it), was not intended by the Framers, and was a power claimed by the court over a decade after it was set up, in Marbury v. Madison
Amending the Constitution to fix the problems with a court that’s been arrogating extra powers to itself from the beginning hardly seems workable.
From an originalist standpoint, the only consistent stance on judicial review seems to be that it shouldn’t exist. If we hew to the original ideas of the Founders and the plain text of the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s powers are at best poorly defined and not clearly enforceable.
We’re not as rowdy as we need to be, but you’re not going to get the full picture from corporate media. They have a vested interest in downplaying or vilifying everything rad we do.
I live near Alito. There was certainly concern that Americans aren’t as pacified as you think–if the riot police and swat that staged near his house, after the Roe decision, was anything to go by.
He may be wrong in a structural sense, but he is making a valid point in a how things really work sense. The phrase "legislate from the bench" was coined for a reason. The concept of judgement notwithstanding the verdict grants some of that power to lower courts. It shouldn't be like that, but it is.
He may be wrong in a structural sense, but he is making a valid point in a how things really work sense. The phrase "legislate from the bench" was coined for a reason. The concept of judgement notwithstanding the verdict grants some of that power to lower courts. It shouldn't be like that, but it is.
Mighty fucking convenient. It’s this kind of stuff that tells me we are governed by children. “Nuh uh. Can’t do that. I’m on base. Na-na-na-boo-boo.”
Whom among you has the power to censor the censor!?
Edit: Also, where does this asshole get off? Congress doesn’t have the power? Let’s logic this out. Does congress have the power to pass laws? Do citizens have to obey laws? Are you a citizen? I can big brain this all day.
Add comment