All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

[Nostra]

So you can show how you called for Kagan to recuse herself from ruling on Obamacare after she advocated for Obamacare while serving in Berry’s regime? Yes or no?

: crickets: from bodecea

Any of you other whiny fucks ask Kagan to recuse?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Only for people it seems that hate black conservative Jurists.

Ain't it cute how you think the Justices are above all rules and reproach. They are just little gods to you that should be allowed to do anything they like

Fuck that

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Most of my generation grew up holding SCOTUS in awe after Brown v. Board of Education. It was reinforced sixty years later with rulings on gay marriage, and ACA, and President Trump.

Now we are terrified that it could spin us into a neo-fascist Republican one party state.

 

[martybegan]

Ain't it cute how you think the Justices are above all rules and reproach. They are just little gods to you that should be allowed to do anything they like

Fuck that

The left only cares about that when they don't have a majority.

The issue is the legislature not doing what it is supposed to do, not one TARGETED justice's friends and business transactions. Or his wife for that matter.

 

[Nostra]

Ain't it cute how you think the Justices are above all rules and reproach. They are just little gods to you that should be allowed to do anything they like

Fuck that

Post his quote saying that. I can't find it.

 

[Nostra]

Most of my generation grew up holding SCOTUS in awe after Brown v. Board of Education. It was reinforced sixty years later with rulings on gay marriage, and ACA, and President Trump.

Now we are terrified that it could spin us into a neo-fascist Republican one party state.

You should move to Iran.

 

[struth]

Ain't it cute how you think the Justices are above all rules and reproach. They are just little gods to you that should be allowed to do anything they like

Fuck that

why do you keep repeating this even after tit was highlighted that’s not true and you acknowledge it not to be true?

 

[Dwell]

Well, separation of powers means it can’t be the executive or legislative branches, so, you are suggesting a non governmental agency to police the Supreme Court?

I'm not sure that's true. The legislative branch, I believe, has the power to establish oversight committees to determine whether or not the executive branch, as well as the Senate and the House, are following constitutional guidelines including ethics. The legislature may have to create new laws to identify specific ethics violations by SCOTUS justices that would expose them to impeachment proceedings, since that apparently hasn't been done yet, but once laws are established there should be no reason to prevent a legislative committee from overseeing the judicial branch in the same way they oversee the other government branches. I understand the concern about partisan bias regarding oversight, but a legislative committee would probably be more secure than a private (non-governmental) would be.

 

[lantern2814]

He has violated reporting requirements MULTIPLE times. He has had an entirely inappropriate relationship with a billionaire.

If one of the liberal judges had a similar relationship with George Soros, all of your head would explode.

What part of High Crimes and MISDEMEANORS do you not understand?

Wow, you are truly an ignorant racist puke. Hey asshole, Thomas violates no laws. Hospitality is not considered a gift. Keep lying and crying you piss drinking racist.

 

[lantern2814]

If a man is too retarded to understand simple disclosure requirements, how in the fuck is he going to know how to interpret the Constitution?

^^^ RACIST!

 

[g5000]

Wow, you are truly an ignorant racist puke. Hey asshole, Thomas violates no laws. Hospitality is not considered a gift. Keep lying and crying you piss drinking racist.

You poor triggered little boy.

 

[lantern2814]

You poor triggered little boy.

No you racist reatard, you’re triggered because you look like a know nothing racist dipshit AGAIN. Noting you run away from the topic like the bitch you are. Now address your lies and racism retard.

 

[g5000]

I hear screeching. Anybody else hear screeching?

 

[struth]

I'm not sure that's true. The legislative branch, I believe, has the power to establish oversight committees to determine whether or not the executive branch, as well as the Senate and the House, are following constitutional guidelines including ethics. The legislature may have to create new laws to identify specific ethics violations by SCOTUS justices that would expose them to impeachment proceedings, since that apparently hasn't been done yet, but once laws are established there should be no reason to prevent a legislative committee from overseeing the judicial branch in the same way they oversee the other government branches. I understand the concern about partisan bias regarding oversight, but a legislative committee would probably be more secure than a private (non-governmental) would be.

there is already something called the judicial committee in both chambers and they can already impeach…they have in fact impeached judges

 

[ThisIsMe]

It clearly leaves that up to the House, not you.

Ok, show me the text that says the house can just make up crimes and misdemeanors. It says the house is responsible for impeachments, it doesn’t say they can just impeach for anything they the feel like.

What you are suggesting could lead to a very bad precedent.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I'm not sure that's true. The legislative branch, I believe, has the power to establish oversight committees to determine whether or not the executive branch, as well as the Senate and the House, are following constitutional guidelines including ethics. The legislature may have to create new laws to identify specific ethics violations by SCOTUS justices that would expose them to impeachment proceedings, since that apparently hasn't been done yet, but once laws are established there should be no reason to prevent a legislative committee from overseeing the judicial branch in the same way they oversee the other government branches. I understand the concern about partisan bias regarding oversight, but a legislative committee would probably be more secure than a private (non-governmental) would be.

So….you’re saying that a democratic congress should be able to have oversight on a Republican majority scotus….or vice versa? I can see THAT working out just great…

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

What Is An Impeachable Offense?

As House Democrats enter the next stage of the impeachment probe..., they too will have to determine what constitutes an impeachable offense.

www.forbes.com

Impeachable Offenses? Congress Defines What's Worthy

Congress has very broad latitude to determine "high crimes and misdemeanors," and the only check on that power is two thirds of the Senate.

www.newsweek.com

https://www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2019 › 11 › congress-decides-impeachable › 601975

Congress Decides What Offenses Are Impeachable - The Atlantic​

By voting, the House throws its weight behind a particular understanding of the impeachable offense. After impeachment, the Senate can then reinforce that judgment by voting to convict and...

 

[Dwell]

So….you’re saying that a democratic congress should be able to have oversight on a Republican majority scotus….or vice versa? I can see THAT working out just great…

We are in that situation now because we have willingly, and ignorantly, allowed political parties to take government control out of the hands of citizens and assume that power for themselves.

 

[Nostra]

We are in that situation now because we have willingly, and ignorantly, allowed political parties to take government control out of the hands of citizens and assume that power for themselves.

Term limits and a balanced budget amendment are the only things that can save the country from the inevitable collapse.

 

[Dwell]

Term limits and a balanced budget amendment are the only things that can save the country from the inevitable collapse.

I'm not sure what term limits would accomplish. A balanced budget amendment makes a lot of sense, therefore, both parties would no doubt oppose it. Since we allow political parties free reign over our government we just have to sit back and take whatever they decide they want.