• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Sen Whitehouse begins process to put SCOTUS under ethics rules. Is it needed?

Should SCOTUS be subject to strict ethics rules?

  • Yes - All branches of government need ethics rules

    Votes: 75 98.7%

  • No - SCOTUS can be trusted to police themselves

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • Total voters
    76
I suppose the threshold question is can the legislature and executive branch impose such a rule (or any rule for that matter) upon the Court under the Constitution?

Although I'm 100% in favor of this-the Supreme Court justices are the ONLY judges (or lawyers for that matter) in the US that are NOT obligated to follow the professional codes of ethics-I see some real potential constitutional problems with such a proposed statute. Perhaps if this bill gains enough support to pass Congress and the Senate and the President indicates he will sign it the members of the Court will themselves impose the standard professional rules upon themselves.

Much of the Court's power comes from public support and without a doubt they look bad operating without being subject to the basic rules of conduct that attorneys and all other judges must comply with.
 
Maybe not all of SCOTUS, only Clarence Thomas the cancer. Remove the cancer and the high court may heal by itself. We have a bad apple and that bad apple must go. Just like the one bad cop, that bad cop can give the entire force a bad name.
 
sportage said:
Maybe not all of SCOTUS, only Clarence Thomas the cancer. Remove the cancer and the high court may heal by itself. We have a bad apple and that bad apple must go. Just like the one bad cop, that bad cop can give the entire force a bad name.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, just Thomas, because that lying, 17th Century solon Sam the Sham Alito is beyond approach . . . not to mention Beer Bong Boy and Amy the Virgin. JFC, OP, what rock have you been hiding under?
 
sportage said:
Maybe not all of SCOTUS, only Clarence Thomas the cancer. Remove the cancer and the high court may heal by itself. We have a bad apple and that bad apple must go. Just like the one bad cop, that bad cop can give the entire force a bad name.
Click to expand...
We have a minimum of 2 bad apples. Thomas and Alito. That's why an intrusive investigation needs to happen.

Remember when all the right wingers were exercised because of the Dobbs leak? What happened to that investigation and the right wing fervor? They realize the likly leaker was Alito in an attempt to soften the blow for the ultimate ruling.
 
What Homer said.

Right wing justices cannot be trusted, it's that simple. They think they are entitled to perjure themselves and don't seem to give a shit about conflicts of interest. Thomas' refusal to recuse himself in order to protect his batshit traitor wife alone answers this thread.
 
Is this not one branch of government asserting itself over the other?
And how is the Court to be punished, removal?
The process to remove would be the same, as I assume it is stipulated in the Constitution?

All this would be, IMO, is partisan fussing over the excuse to initiate impeachment.
 
Jaskalas said:
Is this not one branch of government asserting itself over the other?
And how is the Court to be punished, removal?
The process to remove would be the same, as I assume it is stipulated in the Constitution?

All this would be, IMO, is partisan fussing over the excuse to initiate impeachment.
Click to expand...

If we have co equal branches of govt why shouldn’t SCOTUS be subject to oversight? Do we just let corruption in the court just slide??

Remember the big deal made over the Dobbs leak and now you want to forget about another partisan leak?

We also need to investigate why decisions seem pre determined based on ideology and not on facts of the case. I say the same court that try’s cases should not decide what cases to hear. Conservatives are deciding the same cases they cherry-pick.
 
All the things they are requesting are good and should be adopted, but none of them really fixes any problems because how can you enforce any of them? Who judges the judges?
Ultimately the only real check on the SCOTUS is that the President chooses the candidates and Congress approves of them, and that Congress can remove them at any time if they disapprove of their decisions for basically any reason. That is what is broken, we Congress has been derelict in it's duty to appoint good stewards of our democracy, and to hold them to a high standard.

Democracy does not work if Congress does not do it's work.
 
Pens1566 said:
I'd be interested to see who could bring the case. Standing would be a hurdle. At least until one of the 9 current SCOTUS sues.
Click to expand...
It would be kind of interesting to see how that case would come about but yes presumably the first time someone attempted to apply the judicial ethics rules to them they would have standing and they would probably just toss the case.

This is what I think people aren't getting here. The issue with SCOTUS is it has become lawless and unmoored from traditional understandings of the constitution and legal restraint. You can't pass a new law to make them stop doing that. The ONLY answer is a political one, to take their power away by expanding the court. This serves as both an immediate fix AND as a reminder to the institution to not get too far out of line.
 
Who judges the Judges is an independent panel of non-Government peers ... lawyers, legal scholars and maybe retired judges. What they say goes. Their decisions would be grounds for discipline or removal and would not be subject to interference by any of the three Branches.

As it stands, Congress can (or at least has) only Impeach(ed) Judges for criminal behavior or excessively bad behavior (which Thomas would fit into).

The Bench needs to be 13, one for (and from) each Federal Circuit and they would rotate each session. No one would sit on two consecutive sessions.

For all or any changes to stick, it would need to be an Ammendment which in this climate would be nearly impossible to ratify.
 
kage69 said:
Gotta get that filibuster. GenZ and the ladies will hopefully follow up that eye poke with a hard kick straight to the junction.
Click to expand...
Yep - next time Dems have a trifecta (whenever that is...) they should take a minute in like May of the first year and eliminate the filibuster and pack the court. Conservatives will be outraged but the voters won't care and it will be long forgotten 18 months later when the next election happens.

It's like with Merrick Garland - Republicans bet the voters wouldn't care about that and they were right.
 
fskimospy said:
Yep - next time Dems have a trifecta (whenever that is...) they should take a minute in like May of the first year and eliminate the filibuster and pack the court. Conservatives will be outraged but the voters won't care and it will be long forgotten 18 months later when the next election happens.

It's like with Merrick Garland - Republicans bet the voters wouldn't care about that and they were right.
Click to expand...

One big problem with your assessment. The mainstream media will hyper focus on it and the Dems will suck at messaging back. Because the mainstream media sucks and Dems think that people can understand nuance and principle and actually remember all the shitty things the GQP does.
 
fskimospy said:
Yep - next time Dems have a trifecta (whenever that is...) they should take a minute in like May of the first year and eliminate the filibuster and pack the court. Conservatives will be outraged but the voters won't care and it will be long forgotten 18 months later when the next election happens.

It's like with Merrick Garland - Republicans bet the voters wouldn't care about that and they were right.
Click to expand...

I feel pretty confident everyone except Team Treason understands a repair is necessary. Expanding the court with qualified jurists is that repair. It will evoke the usual fury over something getting fixed despite R objections, but oh well. Restoring the credibility and legitimacy of our highest court is more important.

Speaking of, the list of fixes should probably include some more formal rules regarding SCOTUS hearings, to prevent future Moscow Mitchs from giving the finger to the President and the nominee like that. Made up rules that undermine the will of the voters still shouldn't be used, even if many of them didn't register it in the next election.

GQP is set to piss away the next 2 years on a Hunter Biden show, while doing as much as they can to prevent President Biden from doing anything. Will probably get a debt ceiling fight again, thanks to repugs who are only in this to piss and moan while they act amnesiacs for the cameras. Then add in the DeSantis and Trump war. The evangelicals are now ditching Trump btw "He used us." hahaha, right

I think odds are good that Dem trifecta happens again in 2024, but as usual, we'll see.
 
Last edited:
MrSquished said:
One big problem with your assessment. The mainstream media will hyper focus on it and the Dems will suck at messaging back. Because the mainstream media sucks and Dems think that people can understand nuance and principle and actually remember all the shitty things the GQP does.
Click to expand...
I'm going to register my extreme skepticism that the media will focus on that for 18 months. They will focus on it when the filibuster gets eliminated and then each SCOTUS nomination will capture their attention. This is why you Amy Coney Barrett them all and ram them through in a month or two. The media will not focus on it because their consumers don't care about the topic and that's all the media cares about.

Also, are we still going on about Democratic messaging sucking? I remember before the election this year everyone had all sorts of ideas as to what the Democrats were doing wrong only for it to turn out that they basically nailed it.
 
fskimospy said:
I'm going to register my extreme skepticism that the media will focus on that for 18 months. They will focus on it when the filibuster gets eliminated and then each SCOTUS nomination will capture their attention. This is why you Amy Coney Barrett them all and ram them through in a month or two. The media will not focus on it because their consumers don't care about the topic and that's all the media cares about.

Also, are we still going on about Democratic messaging sucking? I remember before the election this year everyone had all sorts of ideas as to what the Democrats were doing wrong only for it to turn out that they basically nailed it.
Click to expand...
I think that you are calling Republicans destroying themselves Democrats nailing it. Anyway, in my opinion, nailing it can't happen without a synthesis of opposites at a higher degree of understanding articulated to a significant degree. Only a synthesis of opposites, in my opinion, characterizes real understanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top