291
So according to Republicans if the Supreme Court had ethics it would destroy them?
Then they need to be fucking destroyed.
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the Judiciary panel, said that if the bill were to ever pass, “the Supreme Court as we know it would be destroyed.”
Wasn't he the same guy who said that if the GOP nominated Trump, it would destroy the party? He seems to have a fetish for destruction.
I don't want the Supreme Court to continue existing in it's current form, do you?
He's not wrong, he's just an asshole. 🤣🤣
The Supreme Court needs to be reformed, but simply asking them to conform to the same Ethics guidelines other judges do is hardly destroying it.
He seems to have a fetish for destruction.
Among others, if rumors are to be believed.
Lady G has a reputation among a certain set of young men...
Story goes Lindsey Graham has a lot of fetishes...
The committee’s legislation would impose new ethics rules on the court and a process to enforce them, including new standards for transparency around recusals, gifts and potential conflicts of interest. Democrats first pushed the legislation after reports earlier this year that Justice Clarence Thomas participated in luxury vacations and a real estate deal with a top GOP donor — and after Chief Justice John Roberts declined to testify before the committee about the ethics of the court.
The fact that testifying to Congress about their ethics issues is optional is crazy to me. He should have been required and there should be consequences for not doing it.
A good first step, but we need more than a code update when they're ignoring the code as it currently exists. We need an independent non-partisan office that can and will enforce it, and ideally has the capacity to bring criminal charges to justices in violation.
" ignoring the code as it currently exists."
I thought the issue was they aren't covered under those laws.
Yep, exactly. There's an ethics code that Roberts recently published that was a rehash of the non-binding ethics standards that both Thomas and Alioto regularly ignored. This is an update to that code with more oversight in the form of additional required disclosures, but (correct me if I'm wrong - please, I want to be wrong here) I'm not seeing anything about enforcement, or anything about the consequences to a justice for violating these new requirements.
Any non partisan approach will be treated as partisan by the right. I don't want violence to be the solution to the US issues but it gets harder every day to see any other effective solution.
Next up: the Supreme Court decides that ethics rules applied to them are unconstitutional
The legislative branch determines court jurisdiction. They could say that the DC Circuit will be the court of final appeal for any rules involving the supreme court
Systems created under the best-case-scenario will inevitably fail. The US legislative and executive branches were created under the assumption that all players have the best interest of the people and nation in mind and will act accordingly.
Now, watch in amazement as the DNC fails to capitalize on the GOP's desire to have a SCOTUS with no enforceable ethical standards.
It’s not easy to fuck up ethics rules for the Supreme Court. Watch as the senate tries its best to do so.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
291 points (98.7% liked)
News
23259 readers
2740 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS