All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

[struth]

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.

No law requires him to fill those out, it's all voluntary for justices.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

No it doesn't.

The legislative branch, if it follows its constitutional authorization, represents the will of the people in the laws and programs it passes.

The President's authority is to accept or veto laws the legislature passes as well as do some other functions Congress is not authorized to do.

When there is a challenge to the constitutionality of a law or Presidential edict or questions/challenges to the letter and intent of an existing law, it is the responsibility of the Court to determine if such challenge/question is valid, whether the person(s) involved have standing to do so, and rule according to their best evaluation of the letter and intent of the law.

None of the three branches is given authority to dictate anything to the other two.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Conservatives have a 6-3 majority

They can behave as they want

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Of course they have rules, they are ruled by the US Constitution.

The US Constitution has no rules for the conduct of the Justices.

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.

Yet the legislative branch does so for the Executive branch

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No it doesn't.

Sure it does. Congress makes the rules for the employees of the Executive branch.

 

[pknopp]

That's up to the Justices, not Congress and not you.

Which is what I said.

 

[Nostra]

Fail again skippy

 

[Nostra]

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.

WTF do you call impeachment, Simp?

 

[Foxfyre]

Sure it does. Congress makes the rules for the employees of the Executive branch.

Does it? What law established that? My recall of history is the President G.W. Bush signed an executive order for a uniform code of ethics for all employees in the Executive Branch. I think that was in 1989 or 90.

 

[BluesLegend]

A SC justice can be impeached for misconduct. That was mentioned in the post.

Dem douchebags continue their efforts to RIG the SCOTUS. To get something they can use to threaten them into ruling in favor of the liberal world view, control the court's decisions.

 

[pknopp]

Maybe this is why Roberts is reluctant to pass any ethic restrictions on the court.

Jane Roberts, who is married to Chief Justice John Roberts, made $10.3 million in commissions from elite law firms, whistleblower documents show

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Does it? What law established that? My recall of history is the President G.W. Bush signed an executive order for a uniform code of ethics for all employees in the Executive Branch. I think that was in 1989 or 90.

and that law was crafted and passed by Congress

 

[Foxfyre]

and that law was crafted and passed by Congress

Executive orders are not crafted and passed by Congress.

 

[BS Filter]

Dem douchebags continue their efforts to RIG the SCOTUS. To get something they can use to threaten them into ruling in favor of the liberal world view, control the court's decisions.

Corrupt commies.

 

[OKTexas]

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

This is nothing but the commies trying to destroy the separation of powers. They won't be happy till the completely dismantle the US.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Apparently you missed the part about checks and balances in middle school.

Actually the check on the court was included in his post, you're the one that missed it.

.

 

[struth]

The US Constitution has no rules for the conduct of the Justices.



Yet the legislative branch does so for the Executive branch

1) yes it does
2) and the legislative branch can lay out rules for judges and other judicial employees…just jot the president and justices as the other branches

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

1) yes it does
2) and the legislative branch can lay out rules for judges and other judicial employees…just jot the president and justices as the other branches

No, it can't. An ethics code for SCOTUS must be done by SCOTUS,

 

[pknopp]

No, it can't. An ethics code for SCOTUS must be done by SCOTUS,

And they refuse to do so. "Just trust us".

This despite clear evidence they do not always operate in an ethical manner.

 

[struth]

No, it can't. An ethics code for SCOTUS must be done by SCOTUS,

sorry i know. I said congress can make rules for other judges