All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

[Billo_Really]

Bill_Oreilly - moron.

If you don't want to know the answers, don't ask the questions.

 

[Billo_Really]

Thomas has no conflict because his gifts are not from someone who he has business with. The law even says that

Kavanaugh was never proven to have raped anyone

Now barret and gorsuch is a bit muddy, but they never actually lied. They said roe was a precedent but neither ever said they wouldn’t overturn it. They both said it was not “super precedent”

Good Comeback! Bravo! Thank you for showing how to properly rebut an issue.

 

[bripat9643]

If you don't want to know the answers, don't ask the questions.

You post nothing but lies.

 

[Billo_Really]

You post nothing but lies.

I don't lie.

 

[struth]

What could they possibly be impeached for when they have no code of conduct or rules they have to follow?

haha of course they do....they can be impeached for the same stuff the President can be impeached for...high crimes and misdemeanors

 

[Dwell]

Well, if it’s just the ethics implications you are talking about, we already have laws to enforce them.

However, we have a system of checks and balances…except for congress. Yeah, they have oversight committees, but they are essentially policing themselves. Congress has a check against the executive branch and the judicial branch in the form of impeachment….but what checks to the executive and judicial branch have over congress?

I see impeachment as being used in cases where there is evidence that laws (or rules) may have been broken. The job of an oversite committee for SC justices would be to oversee their activities to make sure they haven't broken any rules of ethics. If they have, the committee could issue warnings or turn over the evidence to congress to consider impeachment proceedings. The roadblock for us is that, right now, there are no legal, ethical rules for them to violate. I don't see anything we can impeach them for. None of them broke any rules because rules don't exist for them. This is what we need to change.

 

[struth]

I see impeachment as being used in cases where there is evidence that laws (or rules) may have been broken. The job of an oversite committee for SC justices would be to oversee their activities to make sure they haven't broken any rules of ethics. If they have, the committee could issue warnings or turn over the evidence to congress to consider impeachment proceedings. The roadblock for us is that, right now, there are no legal, ethical rules for them to violate. I don't see anything we can impeach them for. None of them broke any rules because rules don't exist for them. This is what we need to change.

hahha what? of course Justices have to follow laws...they can't murder someone, fail to file taxes, rape, steal etc These are high crimes and misdemeanors which they can be impeached for. If the US House could figure out away to impeach a Justice back in 1804, when they did so with Justice Chase, why can't they figure it out now?

we have never impeached any elected officical for simply having "ethics" that the House didn't agree with.

 

[bodecea]

hahha what? of course Justices have to follow laws...they can't murder someone, fail to file taxes, rape, steal etc These are high crimes and misdemeanors which they can be impeached for. If the US House could figure out away to impeach a Justice back in 1804, when they did so with Justice Chase, why can't they figure it out now?

we have never impeached any elected officical for simply having "ethics" that the House didn't agree with.

Like accepting $$$ and favors from those with business before the Court?

 

[struth]

Like accepting $$$ and favors from those with business before the Court?

who did that? I guess it would greatly depend on the facts and circumstances, if it was to influence the case, then that could be a bribe. If it was a friend, that took you to lunch, not so much.

but whom are you talking about?

 

[2aguy]

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?

You mean like the wise Latina.....Justice Sotomayor........

For example, in 2018, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took 14 reimbursed trips — the most of any justice that year — including one in which she was "provided transportation, food and lodging as a tourist and guest of billionaire Israeli businessman Morris Kahn" who "had business before the Supreme Court before" when SCOTUS "handed Kahn’s company Amdocs Limited a win in November 2017 when it declined to take up a patent-related case."



Additionally, "in 2012, Ginsburg traveled to New York to accept Glamour Magazine’s Woman of the Year award, which came with a gift bag valued at $2,500," according to The Washington Post. That is, receiving valuable items is hardly outside the realm of normalcy.

-----



From 2004 to 2018, former Justice Stephen Breyer — another liberal who was nominated by President Bill Clinton — held the record for the most reimbursed trips of any sitting justice at 219, according to OpenSecrets' report.



But, you may say, the issue that makes trips problematic is when they're not reported. Well, you're in luck because liberal Justice Sonio Sotomayor let covered travel expenses go unreported.



A 2020 public records request filed by Fix the Court revealed that Justice Sotomayor did not initially report free air travel and lodging she received to deliver the commencement address at the University of Rhode Island. That included a "$1,045 flight to Rhode Island in 2016...and the block of up to 11 rooms reserved for her, her friends and her security detail at one of the state’s nicest hotels."

------

Despite the fact that liberal justices hold the records for most trips in a given year in recent memory, and the most trips in a 14-year period, and they've failed to disclose reimbursed travel expenses in the past, and have enjoyed trips covered by individuals who've done business before the Supreme Court, it's only conservative justices who face calls to resign. Funny how that works, eh?



Fix the Court subsequently found that Sotomayor's previous "trips to visit universities in Illinois, New Jersey, Alaska, Wisconsin and Minnesota were also omitted" from her disclosures. The Obama nominee subsequently had to amend her disclosures to note the six originally unreported situations.

http://[URL='https://townhall.com/t...-that-torpedoes-dems-scotus-sideshow-n2622717

[/URL]


I am sure you will now condemn the left wing people pretending to be Supreme Court Justices the way you attacked THomas....

 

[2aguy]

Like accepting $$$ and favors from those with business before the Court?

You mean like Ginsburg and sotomayor did?

For example, in 2018, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took 14 reimbursed trips — the most of any justice that year — including one in which she was "provided transportation, food and lodging as a tourist and guest of billionaire Israeli businessman Morris Kahn" who "had business before the Supreme Court before" when SCOTUS "handed Kahn’s company Amdocs Limited a win in November 2017 when it declined to take up a patent-related case."



Additionally, "in 2012, Ginsburg traveled to New York to accept Glamour Magazine’s Woman of the Year award, which came with a gift bag valued at $2,500," according to The Washington Post. That is, receiving valuable items is hardly outside the realm of normalcy.

-----



From 2004 to 2018, former Justice Stephen Breyer — another liberal who was nominated by President Bill Clinton — held the record for the most reimbursed trips of any sitting justice at 219, according to OpenSecrets' report.



But, you may say, the issue that makes trips problematic is when they're not reported. Well, you're in luck because liberal Justice Sonio Sotomayor let covered travel expenses go unreported.



A 2020 public records request filed by Fix the Court revealed that Justice Sotomayor did not initially report free air travel and lodging she received to deliver the commencement address at the University of Rhode Island. That included a "$1,045 flight to Rhode Island in 2016...and the block of up to 11 rooms reserved for her, her friends and her security detail at one of the state’s nicest hotels."

------

Despite the fact that liberal justices hold the records for most trips in a given year in recent memory, and the most trips in a 14-year period, and they've failed to disclose reimbursed travel expenses in the past, and have enjoyed trips covered by individuals who've done business before the Supreme Court, it's only conservative justices who face calls to resign. Funny how that works, eh?



Fix the Court subsequently found that Sotomayor's previous "trips to visit universities in Illinois, New Jersey, Alaska, Wisconsin and Minnesota were also omitted" from her disclosures. The Obama nominee subsequently had to amend her disclosures to note the six originally unreported situations.

http://[URL='https://townhall.com/t...-that-torpedoes-dems-scotus-sideshow-n2622717

[/URL]

 

[2aguy]

These disclosure rules are too hard to understand.

Yeah....just ask the left wing justices...the ones holding the record on the court.....

For example, in 2018, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took 14 reimbursed trips — the most of any justice that year — including one in which she was "provided transportation, food and lodging as a tourist and guest of billionaire Israeli businessman Morris Kahn" who "had business before the Supreme Court before" when SCOTUS "handed Kahn’s company Amdocs Limited a win in November 2017 when it declined to take up a patent-related case."



Additionally, "in 2012, Ginsburg traveled to New York to accept Glamour Magazine’s Woman of the Year award, which came with a gift bag valued at $2,500," according to The Washington Post. That is, receiving valuable items is hardly outside the realm of normalcy.

-----



From 2004 to 2018, former Justice Stephen Breyer — another liberal who was nominated by President Bill Clinton — held the record for the most reimbursed trips of any sitting justice at 219, according to OpenSecrets' report.



But, you may say, the issue that makes trips problematic is when they're not reported. Well, you're in luck because liberal Justice Sonio Sotomayor let covered travel expenses go unreported.



A 2020 public records request filed by Fix the Court revealed that Justice Sotomayor did not initially report free air travel and lodging she received to deliver the commencement address at the University of Rhode Island. That included a "$1,045 flight to Rhode Island in 2016...and the block of up to 11 rooms reserved for her, her friends and her security detail at one of the state’s nicest hotels."

------

Despite the fact that liberal justices hold the records for most trips in a given year in recent memory, and the most trips in a 14-year period, and they've failed to disclose reimbursed travel expenses in the past, and have enjoyed trips covered by individuals who've done business before the Supreme Court, it's only conservative justices who face calls to resign. Funny how that works, eh?



Fix the Court subsequently found that Sotomayor's previous "trips to visit universities in Illinois, New Jersey, Alaska, Wisconsin and Minnesota were also omitted" from her disclosures. The Obama nominee subsequently had to amend her disclosures to note the six originally unreported situations.

http://[URL='https://townhall.com/t...-that-torpedoes-dems-scotus-sideshow-n2622717

[/URL]

 

[bripat9643]

I don't lie.

Sure you do. All leftists lie.

 

[Billo_Really]

Sure you do. All leftists lie.

Not me.

 

[Care4all]

SCOTUS is co-equal to legislative and executive, and libs and cons, dems and repubs, can just go suck air if they don't like it.

No, not really.

The 3 branches of government are listed in order of importance in the constitution.

Congress, both branches is the MOST important, it represents, we the people, then the executive branch is next, and the Supreme court is last....

 

[2aguy]

No, not really.

The 3 branches of government are listed in order of importance in the constitution.

Congress, both branches is the MOST important, it represents, we the people, then the executive branch is next, and the Supreme court is last....

No....that isn't true. They are coequal branches.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No, not really.

The 3 branches of government are listed in order of importance in the constitution.

Congress, both branches is the MOST important, it represents, we the people, then the executive branch is next, and the Supreme court is last....

Yes, they are listed in order but not of importance in the law. They are co-equal branches.

"The Constitution of the United States contains a preamble and seven articles that describe the way the government is structured and how it operates. The first three articles establish the three branches of government and their powers: Legislative (Congress), Executive (office of the President,) and Judicial (Federal court system). A system of checks and balances prevents any one of these separate powers from becoming dominant. Articles four through seven describe the relationship of the states to the Federal Government, establish the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and define the amendment and ratification processes." The Constitution: What Does it Say?

 

[Nostra]

You mean like the wise Latina.....Justice Sotomayor........

For example, in 2018, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took 14 reimbursed trips — the most of any justice that year — including one in which she was "provided transportation, food and lodging as a tourist and guest of billionaire Israeli businessman Morris Kahn" who "had business before the Supreme Court before" when SCOTUS "handed Kahn’s company Amdocs Limited a win in November 2017 when it declined to take up a patent-related case."



Additionally, "in 2012, Ginsburg traveled to New York to accept Glamour Magazine’s Woman of the Year award, which came with a gift bag valued at $2,500," according to The Washington Post. That is, receiving valuable items is hardly outside the realm of normalcy.

-----



From 2004 to 2018, former Justice Stephen Breyer — another liberal who was nominated by President Bill Clinton — held the record for the most reimbursed trips of any sitting justice at 219, according to OpenSecrets' report.



But, you may say, the issue that makes trips problematic is when they're not reported. Well, you're in luck because liberal Justice Sonio Sotomayor let covered travel expenses go unreported.



A 2020 public records request filed by Fix the Court revealed that Justice Sotomayor did not initially report free air travel and lodging she received to deliver the commencement address at the University of Rhode Island. That included a "$1,045 flight to Rhode Island in 2016...and the block of up to 11 rooms reserved for her, her friends and her security detail at one of the state’s nicest hotels."

------

Despite the fact that liberal justices hold the records for most trips in a given year in recent memory, and the most trips in a 14-year period, and they've failed to disclose reimbursed travel expenses in the past, and have enjoyed trips covered by individuals who've done business before the Supreme Court, it's only conservative justices who face calls to resign. Funny how that works, eh?



Fix the Court subsequently found that Sotomayor's previous "trips to visit universities in Illinois, New Jersey, Alaska, Wisconsin and Minnesota were also omitted" from her disclosures. The Obama nominee subsequently had to amend her disclosures to note the six originally unreported situations.

http://[URL='https://townhall.com/t...-that-torpedoes-dems-scotus-sideshow-n2622717

[/URL]


I am sure you will now condemn the left wing people pretending to be Supreme Court Justices the way you attacked THomas....

That’s different.

 

[Nostra]

No, not really.

The 3 branches of government are listed in order of importance in the constitution.

Congress, both branches is the MOST important, it represents, we the people, then the executive branch is next, and the Supreme court is last....

Where does the Constitution say they are ranked?

What part of “Co-EQUAL” Confuses your pea brain?

 

[bripat9643]

Not me.

You're lying right now.