All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

[rightwinger]

I provided tons of proof you are a troll.

Fail again skippy

 

[struth]

My oh my! I wonder what the left think about this. Apparently all 9 justices, which includes the staunch liberals, aren't in favor of SC oversight.




There's no conservative-liberal divide on the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to calls for a new, enforceable ethics code.

All nine justices, in a rare step, on Tuesday released a joint statement reaffirming their voluntary adherence to a general code of conduct but rebutting proposals for independent oversight, mandatory compliance with ethics rules and greater transparency in cases of recusal.

All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight: 'Raises more questions,' Senate chair says

In a rare joint statement, the justices said they want to "provide new clarity."

abc30.com

We started to see this with RBG after the demafascist attacks on Justice Kavenaugh and their attempted insurrection at his hearings and her comments condemning their acts...even the liberal justices are starting to see how the left is trying to undermine the third branch of Govt

 

[j-mac]

I knew you couldn’t back up your claims, you never do

And you do? Gimme a break!

 

[struth]

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?

He understands he has no requirement.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

My oh my! I wonder what the left think about this. Apparently all 9 justices, which includes the staunch liberals, aren't in favor of SC oversight.




There's no conservative-liberal divide on the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to calls for a new, enforceable ethics code.

All nine justices, in a rare step, on Tuesday released a joint statement reaffirming their voluntary adherence to a general code of conduct but rebutting proposals for independent oversight, mandatory compliance with ethics rules and greater transparency in cases of recusal.

All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight: 'Raises more questions,' Senate chair says

In a rare joint statement, the justices said they want to "provide new clarity."

abc30.com

What could possibly go wrong with the most powerful 9 people in the country having zero oversight.

This is your authoritarian wet dream come true.

 

[struth]

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?

There is no requirement he disclouse anything.

But thanks for highlighting your true nature...you think it's inappropriate this black man have a friendship with a white man...

It's not a crime for a black man to be friends with a white man.

 

[g5000]

He understands he has no requirement.

He does have a requirement to report the real estate transaction.

This is not the first time Thomas has failed to disclose things he is required to. He has had to modify his disclosures twice in the past after being caught.

How many times would you let a liberal judge get away with it?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Because what is being said about him isn't an impeachable offense.

Which is the problem.

 

[struth]

What could possibly go wrong with the most powerful 9 people in the country having zero oversight.

This is your authoritarian wet dream come true.

what are you talking about? there is a system of checks nad balances...they have to first be nominated by the Executive branch, then the Senate has to consent to their nomination. That is oversight.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Because what is being said about him isn't an impeachable offense.

Yes, yes, yes, the charges are impeachable if true. The Congress could impeach Thomas if the members agreed that Thomas' adoration of yellow was an impeachable offense.

Impeachable is in the eye of Congress. Only. No other.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

what are you talking about? there is a system of checks nad balances...they have to first be nominated by the Executive branch, then the Senate has to consent to their nomination. That is oversight.

And once they are on the bench for life they have no rules to follow, they are free to do as they wish.

 

[struth]

He does have a requirement to report the real estate transaction.

This is not the first time Thomas has failed to disclose things he is required to. He has had to modify his disclosures twice in the past after being caught.

How many times would you let a liberal judge get away with it?

i mean i guess with the local court, with their land records...and of course with taxes if he made any income off it...but beyond that no...and there is no accusations that he didn't do that.

When has he failed to file whatever he was required to? show us This wasn't one of them

 

[Thunk]

Each branch of government, executive, legislative, judiciary was intended to be separate and independent of the others with each having its own specific functions and none having any authority over the others.

Damn straight!

3 CO-EQUAL branches of gov't.

It is what our "checks and blances" are based on.

 

[struth]

And once they are on the bench for life they have no rules to follow, they are free to do as they wish.

That's not true at all, they can't speed, murder someone etc...they have to follow the law as well...so not sure where you are getting that intel

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That's not true at all, they can't speed, murder someone etc...they have to follow the law as well...so not sure where you are getting that intel

Yes, they cannot do those things.

But when it comes to their position they have no rules, nothing that stops them from taking bribes or ruling in a way that benefits them and their friends.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Each branch of government, executive, legislative, judiciary was intended to be separate and independent of the others with each having its own specific functions and none having any authority over the others.

Yet the legislative branch makes the rules for the members of the executive branch.

 

[Foxfyre]

Damn straight!

3 CO-EQUAL branches of gov't.

It is what our "checks and blances" are based on.

Exactly.

The intended balance is no branch of government can dictate anything to another and each is limited in its scope of authority. When they operate as intended, that helps prevent any one branch of government becoming a dictator or dictatorial oligarchy.

The check is the power of impeachment if any elected/appointed official violates his/her oath of office via a high crime and misdemeanor.

 

[struth]

Yes, they cannot do those things.

But when it comes to their position they have no rules, nothing that stops them from taking bribes or ruling in a way that benefits them and their friends.

Of course they have rules, they are ruled by the US Constitution. What the legislative branch can't do, is create a system of ethics or tell the Supremes how to run their branch of Govt...because of sepeation of powers.

Well, no brides are illegal acts in the criminal code, they could be impeached and prosecuted for taking brides...just like they can't murder someone. I am sure they have numerous friends and many of their rulings have benefits their friends at times....

 

[ActionJackson]

I see no call for accountability.

"Just trust us" is not true accountability.

If Congress doesn't believe the Court has taken proper steps or has reached an incorrect conclusion, it can pass legislation which can change any future course of action. The Court's job is to interpret the Constitution and apply its precepts. There are 9 Justices that can keep each other in check and accountable. They don't need any outside babysitters.

 

[g5000]

i mean i guess with the local court, with their land records...and of course with taxes if he made any income off it...but beyond that no...and there is no accusations that he didn't do that.

When has he failed to file whatever he was required to? show us This wasn't one of them

Report: Supreme Court justice sold real estate to donor, didn't report deal - Maryland Daily Record

A conservative mega-donor purchased three properties from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a transaction that Thomas never reported, according to ProPublica.

thedailyrecord.com

Federal officials, including Supreme Court justices, are required to disclose the details of most real estate transactions with a value of over $1,000. Thomas would not be required to report the purchase if the property was his or his spouse’s primary personal residence, but this stipulation does not apply to this purchase, which Thomas did not report.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/17/politics/clarence-thomas-amend-disclosure-gop-megadonor/index.html

Clarence Thomas to amend financial disclosure forms to reflect sale to GOP megadonor​

​

As I said, this is not the first time Thomas has violated disclosure rules.

2011:

Thomas revises disclosure forms​

​

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has amended 13 years’ worth of disclosure reports to include details of wife Virginia Thomas’s sources of income, documents released on Monday show.

[snip]

Like all federal judges, Thomas must file annual disclosure reports on his personal finances, but he had omitted details of his wife’s earnings in what he wrote was a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” He also had checked a box marking no spousal income.