• 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?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

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
Greenman said:
Exactly the consequences you mentioned. No mater what's done to bring them under control it will be ruled unconstitutional. At this point I don't see constraints as being necessary, but as the political divide widens it seems likely it will become so.
Click to expand...
If you don't think constraints are necessary on SCOTUS why didn't you vote, "No"??
 
Greenman said:
Exactly the consequences you mentioned. No mater what's done to bring them under control it will be ruled unconstitutional. At this point I don't see constraints as being necessary, but as the political divide widens it seems likely it will become so.
Click to expand...
That's the beauty of it. The ethics rules will prevent them from making a ruling that effects only them. /s
 
Muse said:
Well, now that we're here what are we going to do? Wait for the majority to die off? Can't be the best idea.
Click to expand...
The best course would be to vote for a Congress that will do its job.
Okay, yeah, that one is a long shot.
Looks like waiting for them to die is probably the only real course forward. Of course, that only works if Congress decides to do their job next time. Which also seems unlikely.
My personal evaluation of the situation is that we are all probably fucked. Congress has discovered that it is better to blame each other for the failure than fix the problems. Leading our government to become too dysfunctional to do the basic job of governing itself. From now on it will just get slowly worse until something major happens, then it could go either way.
 
SMOGZINN said:
The best course would be to vote for a Congress that will do its job.
Okay, yeah, that one is a long shot.
Looks like waiting for them to die is probably the only real course forward. Of course, that only works if Congress decides to do their job next time. Which also seems unlikely.
My personal evaluation of the situation is that we are all probably fucked. Congress has discovered that it is better to blame each other for the failure than fix the problems. Leading our government to become too dysfunctional to do the basic job of governing itself. From now on it will just get slowly worse until something major happens, then it could go either way.
Click to expand...
Might sound nuts, but I prefer to throw the crystal ball against the granite cliffs, shattering it. IOW, to toss the idea that things are written in stone and keep pressing for change. The young get it, at least the smart ones, young at heart (and, of course, it ain't what it says on your driver's license). The women get it, well a lot more than the men do, and the blacks get it. They've always been better than the whites at knowing who their real friends are. The Latinos? I just don't know. There's a nasty macho GMFY streak among many, but I think the great majority are smarter than that. The gays mostly know the Democrats are far more on their side.

Look, the November midterms showed that what people thought wasn't what was necessarily going to happen. Press that forward. Climate change consciousness and ecology in general is increasingly getting traction. Where gun control is going? I think it's not wise to predict it's going nowhere, looking at the polls and the increased frequency of cringe inducing massacres.

The SCOTUS' recent activity is not popular by and large. Some of the court may decide they are sick on being unpopular and on the wrong side of history, what have they got to lose? Some people are hopeless. I don't expect a change of heart from Thomas or Alioto, but the other 4, who knows? Plus, justices can retire or die. Packing the court is not impossible. And we don't know what we don't know. That's not as stupid as it may sound to you.
 
Last edited:
HomerJS said:
Does SCOTUS need to be placed under ethics rules. Currently they are the only government branch that doesn't have any. Holding to any ethics standards are left up to individual justices.

Does this court need ethics enshrined into law/firm rule?

Sen. Whitehouse and Rep. Johnson Press SCOTUS About Apparent Ethical Lapses After New Outside Influence Scandal Emerges (senate.gov)
Click to expand...
depends on how they define these ethics, typically such moves just serve one agenda or another. im more interested in the brunson v adams case being accepted.
 
This thing about implementing ethics rules are an impediment toward "conducting business as usual" so whatever rules are put in place will be attacked from every conceivable angle to get around them, including building in vague and arguable language in the rules that blows gaping holes in the very intent of said rules. With every conservative judge being bought and paid for by their corporate sponsors, it'll be the Republicans that will try their best to gut these ethics rules from the moment the first drafts are being written up.
 
enjoy the movie. the end wont be for everyone. It will be interesting to see how liberal techies react to whats coming, the term shock and awe probably draws pale by comparison. i think a few grains of this beach might come out of the indoctrination, the rest will implode. just on the brunson v adams case and another like it, should make for great comedy on this forum
 
Last edited:
Verndewdimus said:
enjoy the movie. the end wont be for everyone. It will be interesting to see how liberal techies react to whats coming, the term shock and awe probably draws pale by comparison. i think a few grains of this beach might come out of the indoctrination, the rest will implode. just on the brunson v adams case and another like it, should make for great comedy on this forum
Click to expand...

What do you think the status of Brunson v Adams is?

apnews.com

Supreme Court did not hear a case seeking to oust Biden and other elected officials

CLAIM: The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case last week that was expected to annul the 2020 election. AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The Supreme Court did not hear such a case.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
HomerJS said:
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??
Click to expand...
The premise of this topic is false.

Congress already has the power of "oversight" for SCOTUS, and to remove them from office.
The reason you complain is you know you will never have enough votes to secure the outcome you want. To perform this oversight as provided for in the Constitution.

This is not a question of the court. Rather, it is about our two parties and them fighting one another. Republicans will never question the corruption of their people. Our Democracy itself does not function under such partisan conditions. Resulting in many more and much bigger problems than the SCOTUS. One example, being unable to impeach Presidents for actual crimes like extortion, demanding a foreign nation interfere in our elections, and insurrection.

When the President is above the law, the SCOTUS certainly is as well. The outcome is these things is merely a partisan function, resulting in a breakdown of the rule of law, and the eventual use of force instead.
 
Back in Feb you said:

Verndewdimus said:
im more interested in the brunson v adams case being accepted.

lol i predict a houseful of minds blown in the near future. man if you only knew the truth
Click to expand...

Now you say:
Verndewdimus said:
It will be interesting to see how liberal techies react to whats coming, the term shock and awe probably draws pale by comparison. i think a few grains of this beach might come out of the indoctrination, the rest will implode. just on the brunson v adams case and another like it,
Click to expand...

So far the only things I know have happened since Feb1 in regard to these cases is that the SC has declined twice more to hear either of them. Those decisions were certainly not mind-blowing.

So, please, tell me what is this truth that was supposed to have happened. What is it that you know and I don't about these cases that will cause me to implode?
 
HomerJS said:
Defund. SCOTUS

Nothing in the Constitution that demands they be funded
Click to expand...

Haven't several of them already got themselves private sources of funding? Would they not just expand further on that? The whole enterprise would presumably swiftly be privatized. Supreme Court PLC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top