Is that a textualist or originalist interpretation of the constitution?
In other words…
Are the Supreme Priests going to go by the strict definition of the words or the way they feel the founding fathers intended the words? Ahh who am I kidding?? They are just playing…
“Who’s line is it anyway?: Supreme Edition
The court where everything’s made up and the constitution don’t matter”
dissolve the court. arrest gorsuch, thomas, alito and kavanaugh. investigate everyone else and if they even so much as took a breath mint from someone who had business before the court, arrest them too. “but what about the liberal justices?” yes, them too. arrest the corrupt. it’s not an extreme position.
It’s so exhausting when ethics are considered a partisan issue and the ones against ethics and oversight will not shut up accusing others of unethical behavior. Also, the ‘ethics codes’ congressmen and senators are supposed to abide by aren’t enforced in anything like a rigorous or consistent way.
At the very least, congressmen, senators, and justices ought to be held to standards higher than the standards they’re responsible for holding others to. Unfortunately, holding them to those higher standards is a sort of power that would be instantly abused the moment anyone with an agenda and crap ethics has it, another ‘who will watch the watchmen?’ conundrum
This shit is why we can’t have nice things apparently
Sad situation, I don’t understand how do many people are OK with it, but they are. The GOP and still obtain a significant victory in the next election. We need to make sure to get out and vote.
When there is a legitimate ethics violation why don’t we get a referee and then get a random group of 12 people to decide if it was worth them being penalized?
I know i’m just talkin crazy here but…
TLDR; Clarence Thomas took bribes, the only way it would be more obvious would be if they gave him the money in a bag with $$$ printed on the outside. Throw his corrupt ass in jail.
It’s absolute insanity that members of the highest court in the land don’t have to abide by such pesky rules as “codes of ethics” or even have to worry about the appearance of impropriety. I’m guessing it’s another of those things where the Founding Fathers assumed that selfless politicians, working tirelessly in service of their countrymen, would come together for the good of the nation to impeach SOC judges if there was ever even a hint of something wrong happening.
Meanwhile, in reality it’s just this BS club of unelected judges that get to basically make their own policy without any oversight. I get that somebody somewhere has to be a deciding factor on how some of these cases play out, but given the weight and responsibility that comes with the position, they really should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us.
because when you get right down to it anything they did would be themselves doing it and thus subject to themselves NOT doing it. so the founding documents cut to the chase – impeach the fuckers if they need it.
(of course, as you hint, they didn’t appropriately plan for party capture)
I’ve observed 40 years of Democrats solely enabling rollbacks of economic and social power, and then pretending to be powerless when we need them to stand up and do something. There’s nothing shameful about acknowledging that they’ve become collaborators.
The minimum wage is, and has been, stuck at 7 bucks an hour for 15 years. Abortion is now illegal in most of the country. Trans people are living in fear for their lives under a Democratic president who had control of Congress for two years. We have unlimited funds for like 9 wars, and one of those wars isn’t even ours, but diabetics are being charged a mortgage payment to inhabit their own body every month. We find five billion in charity for Israel every year even though they don’t need it and entire towns in this country have poisoned water pipes. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are doing anything about the increasing scarcity of housing even though that is becoming a legitimate crisis in most major cities. To top it off, Democrats even withheld $600 of the $2000 in COVID aid they promised us when we gave them a majority.
It is literally unfortunate. I appreciate your pithy tone though.
It is true that many democrats are complicit in our problems. To say that people shouldn’t vote - which is what you said, 2 party system - is wrong. Democrat is the better option despite the current flaws.
I suspect you are hinting at revolution, but you won’t get off the couch. Be the change you want to see.
I don’t know how anyone can come to that conclusion, especially if you’re a wage earner, or need health care, or education, or to not be in fear for your life as a trans person. Democrats do nothing meaningful when we hand them a majority and all of their supporters just offer up excuses like they’re somehow powerless.
I suspect you are hinting at revolution, but you won’t get off the couch. Be the change you want to see.
I know I’m shouting into the void. The voting population in this country votes Democrat or Republican no matter what their politicians do. No one is willing to hold anyone accountable. We’re powerless. The best anyone can do for themselves in this country is to take all of the money you might donate to a politician and invest it in the stock market instead. At least your money will have actual representation. You won’t.
was first to allow gay marriage and is very accepting
is probably first in health care, including coverage for most, depending on your metrics
is consistently first or second for education
minimum wage $15/hr
in several quality of life metrics ranks right up there with best in the world countries
And we recently pushed through the MBTA Communities Zoning law requiring towns with transit to allow “by right” high density housing near transit stations
Seriously. Why are they getting handouts when they can legally get rich on insider trading, like normal Congress members? (/s in case you think I’m serious)
Yeah nothing like going old-school French Revolution and killing a few million people then having a couple civil wars to really sus out who is a “true American.”
They call it the Reign of Terror because it was so much fun!
It’s not about being a true american, it’s about finally putting up a boundary against fascism. Granted, Robespierre was doing his own brand of fascism with the guillotine but we don’t have to repeat this part of history.
You see it that way, and millions of others see it as “the socialist takeover” or whatever nonsense, and all of a sudden we have mobs of people killing each other
What would be the actual consequences here? Because as far as I can tell, ethics bodies over the other branches are about as worthless as the bioethics division at Umbrella Labs.
Wait, what?!? In the US, Supreme Court judges have no code of ethics?!?! If I’m not mistaken, here in Canada all judges are bound by a code of ethics: cjc-ccm.ca/…/CJC_20-301_Ethical-Principles_Biling…
Pretty sure it's the same in Australia. Our judges are also appointed by their legal peers who are also held to a pretty strict code of ethics. Breaches of these codes can result in being stripped of your right to practice law. These features combined limit this nonsense of partisan judges tthat the US seems to be afflicted with.
Supreme Court appointments in the US don’t even need to be lawyers or have any legal experience. There are absolutely zero qualifications for being an appointed judge beyond being appointed by the President and gaining the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate.
That’s it.
The President could nominate Chaz, the 17-year-old stoner with a peach fuzz goatee whose most daunting task in any given day is when someone orders a customized burrito at the Taco Bell drive thru and they have to make it in less than 2 minutes. If the Senate confirms him — based on current justicies, all he has to do is cry when asked questions — he’s a Supreme Court justice.
No doubt if Trump were to get re-elected, he’d nominate Judge Aileen Cannon to the SCOTUS, with her 3 years of judicial experience and trail of questionable decisions.
all the other judges have a code of ethic. scotus insists that it has a code of ethics too, but that it has to keep that code secret or people with business before the court will try to abuse that code of ethics in order to force unfavorable justices to recuse themselves. scotus also tells us that taking money, favors and gifts from people who have business before the court does not violate the secret code of ethics that they have. how a code of ethics that doesn’t cover bribery differs from a code of ethics that doesn’t exist at all has been left as an exercise to the reader.
Add comment