All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

[struth]

and that law was crafted and passed by Congress

haha an executive order is not a law crafted by congress

 

[rightwinger]

I was talking about the recent decision. When the left disagree with the Court they don't have faith in it. To put it more simply, if the Court makes decisions based on the law instead of public opinion, then the public doesn't have faith in the Court. In order for the Court to have the faith of the public, they must decide cases by public opinion, to hell with the laws.

Now, if Kavanaugh and Barrett had voiced their opinions on the validity of Roe or even refused to answer during their confirmation….you may have a point

But each stated they respected the precedent on Roe and had no intent to change it.

They told the confirmation hearing whatever it took to get confirmed and then did what they wanted once they were on the court

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

haha an executive order is not a law crafted by congress

You have to excuse GG. He was busy eating crayons so that he could become a Marine to pay attention in class.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

haha an executive order is not a law crafted by congress

I was talking about this law...ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978 - PUBLIC LAW 95-521, OCTOBER 26, 1978. T

 

[Nostra]

How about we impeach him on the condition that if he is removed, he is replaced by a die hard Conservative?

And 45 years old.

 

[Nostra]

It would help if conservatives justices weren't on the take.

Link?

 

[struth]

I was talking about this law...ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978 - PUBLIC LAW 95-521, OCTOBER 26, 1978. T

you were responding to a poster taking about an EO

 

[Harpy Eagle]

you were responding to a poster taking about an EO

I thought he was speaking of this law.

My mistake.

 

[Dragonlady]

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

If there is no code of conduct to define what constitutes “misconduct”, how can they be impeached?

The SC is not bound by any Executive Branch Code of Ethics because it’s not part of Congress or the Executive Branch. They are a separate branch of government and make their own rules, just as the EB and Congress have already done.

 

[ThisIsMe]

And yet no one on the New Right is calling for Justice Thomas's impeachment.

We’ll yeah, just like nobody on the left would ever call for an impeachment for a judge on their side. That’s not news, it’s politics.

However, if he violated laws, then he is no different than anyone else. But, from what I’ve read, what he did may not be a violation, and if it was, it was just a violation of reporting requirements.

The hill article says:

“The law includes an exception for food, lodging, or entertainment received as “personal hospitality,” and the new regulations seek to clarify the term. The exception only covers certain gifts of a nonbusiness nature and does not apply to those extended at a commercial property, according to the updated rules. “

Supreme Court justices face new disclosure requirements for gifts, free trips

Supreme Court justices must follow strengthened financial disclosure requirements surrounding gifts and free hotel stays, which follows rising pressure from lawmakers about the high court’s ethics …

thehill.com

“They go on to note that “personal” means a judge has a personal relationship with the host and should not include situations in which the invitation is merely being delivered personally.”

A couple different articles I’ve read state that gifts from personal friends may be exempt from the law.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978 - PUBLIC LAW 95-521, OCTOBER 26, 1978.

The Supreme Court is the only court in the United States that has never adopted a written code of ethics.
.

Your law is irrelevant to SCOTUS.

 

[Esdraelon]

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

The Legislative branch can REMOVE a SCOTUS justice through Impeachment.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If there is no code of conduct to define what constitutes “misconduct”, how can they be impeached?

The SC is not bound by any Executive Branch Code of Ethics because it’s not part of Congress or the Executive Branch. They are a separate branch of government and make their own rules, just as the EB and Congress have already done.

All of the above is true, but the justices can be impeached on charges brought by the House.

 

[struth]

If there is no code of conduct to define what constitutes “misconduct”, how can they be impeached?

The SC is not bound by any Executive Branch Code of Ethics because it’s not part of Congress or the Executive Branch. They are a separate branch of government and make their own rules, just as the EB and Congress have already done.

the constitution. states the conduct that can lead to impeachment

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

All of the above is true, but the justices can be impeached on charges brought by the House.

Go for it so you Dems will have yet another failure on your record!

 

[BS Filter]

If there is no code of conduct to define what constitutes “misconduct”, how can they be impeached?

The SC is not bound by any Executive Branch Code of Ethics because it’s not part of Congress or the Executive Branch. They are a separate branch of government and make their own rules, just as the EB and Congress have already done.

The Constitution says they can be impeached. Mole face.

Article II, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution defines the grounds for impeachment and conviction as ''treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

[Independent thinker]

Now, if Kavanaugh and Barrett had voiced their opinions on the validity of Roe or even refused to answer during their confirmation….you may have a point

But each stated they respected the precedent on Roe and had no intent to change it.

They told the confirmation hearing whatever it took to get confirmed and then did what they wanted once they were on the court

The fact remains, the Court made a decision the left didn't like so they lost faith in the Court.

 

[Nostra]

The fact remains, the Court made a decision the left didn't like so they lost faith in the Court.

And the Senate majority leader tried to have them assassinated.

 

[rightwinger]

The fact remains, the Court made a decision the left didn't like so they lost faith in the Court.

The court lost faith in the people

 

[Dragonlady]

We’ll yeah, just like nobody on the left would ever call for an impeachment for a judge on their side. That’s not news, it’s politics.

However, if he violated laws, then he is no different than anyone else. But, from what I’ve read, what he did may not be a violation, and if it was, it was just a violation of reporting requirements.

The hill article says:

“The law includes an exception for food, lodging, or entertainment received as “personal hospitality,” and the new regulations seek to clarify the term. The exception only covers certain gifts of a nonbusiness nature and does not apply to those extended at a commercial property, according to the updated rules. “

Supreme Court justices face new disclosure requirements for gifts, free trips

Supreme Court justices must follow strengthened financial disclosure requirements surrounding gifts and free hotel stays, which follows rising pressure from lawmakers about the high court’s ethics …

thehill.com

“They go on to note that “personal” means a judge has a personal relationship with the host and should not include situations in which the invitation is merely being delivered personally.”

A couple different articles I’ve read state that gifts from personal friends may be exempt from the law.

The Judge and Crow didn’t become “personal friends” until after the Judge had been elevated to the SC.

The fact remains, the Court made a decision the left didn't like so they lost faith in the Court.

They broke their own rules on overturning precedent. They did no study on what the effect of overruling that precedent would be, and how many people would be impacted, which is supposed to be basic to the process.

Women are dying because of their dogma.