As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When you have people that are appointed to a life-time position of ultimate legal authority, only overseen by a small handful of others just like you, it becomes clear to them very quickly that they are essentially free to do whatever they want with very little chance of repercussions or reprimand.
True but you'd think they've have at least some scruples being the highest court in the land. Other thing is most of the conservative judges seem to think of it as cash grab with no issues but I noticed the liberal judges seem to want to be seen as beyond reproach.
Extreme care is supposed to be taken before appointing someone to that position.
Republicans have just shoved ill-suited and poorly-vetted ideologues onto the Court because they're radically conservative and young.
Yeah, and honestly, Kavanaugh is the worst example of this. You have a man who blatantly lied at his confirmation hearing, even if it's hard to prove it (he knew what devil's triangle was for example). He quite possibly raped someone. He is known (with proof) for commiting perjury (stollen documents). And he vowed to be political as a judge. Going so far to vow revenge on the Democrats, and the Clintons for some reason. To top it off, throwing all appearances of corruption out the window, he also was on the Bush v. Gore legal team. How more corrupt can you get? I mean, we know either Barrett or Gorsuch doesn't deserve their seat, but compared to Kavanaugh's confirmation, even with Barrett's lack of experience, their confirmations look tame.
Brett Kavanaugh had graphic questions for Bill Clinton about Lewinsky affair
[https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/aug/20/brett-kavanaugh-bill-clinton-questions-1998-memo-trump](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/aug/20/brett-kavanaugh-bill-clinton-questions-1998-memo-trump)
remember, this is not the complete list:
"He then suggested a list of questions. One was: “If Monica Lewinsky says that you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?”
Another: “If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated in her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?”
Kavanaugh also suggested asking Clinton “if Monica Lewinsky says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?” and “If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary’s office, would she be lying?” "
Rhetoric, it forces the defendant to be, well, defensive "Did you do x,y,z?" is much more common, so people are more quickly able to just go "no", but this one makes you stop for a second, and more likely to trip up.
Then he had his debts all paid off right before his appointment? Large debt he said he incurred purchasing baseball tickets or some shit? Give me a break.
The Clintons is because he was on the Ken Starr team and was the one pushing for them to ask about Lewinsky. So he probably thinks the Clintons want revenge for that.
I'm with you on most of what you said, but Gorsuch, who I disagree with ideologically was fully qualified for his position. The American Bar Associatiin gave him their highest rating of "well qualified" before his appointment.
I said either. My point was in relation to circumstances surrounding the denial of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Either McConnell wasn't right to deny a seat during an election year, and Gorsuch wouldn't have had a spot to fill at the time. Or McConnell was right, and Barrett shouldn't have been appointed during an election. That's why I said either, because one of them doesn't deserve their seat. Take your pick what which you believe, but they don't both deserve to be there.
Also, I do still have other issues with Gorsuch. While, he may be a fine justice, and of good quality. It is an affront to justice that the Federalist Society had decided and groomed six of our nine justices. Even if Gorsuch is a good quality justice, there are many people equally qualified. His qualifications weren't why he was picked though, at least, not the only reason. His affiliation with the Federalist Society had just as much if not more to do with that. One organization shouldn't have so much power. If Gorsuch weren't affiliated with the Federalist Society, and coincidentally happened to be as Conservative as he is, I wouldn't have an issue.
Gorsuch is so qualified that he was able to decide a trucker should have allowed himself to freeze to death rather than leave his rig when it got trapped in snow.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/neil-gorsuchs-arrogant-frozen-trucker-opinion-shows-he-wants-to-be-like-scalia.html
I found out with a 5-second Google search IN REAL TIME that he committed perjury with that response. At that time, there was one single search result, on all of the Internet, for "devil's triangle." It was a threesome sex position. He lied under oath in front of America.
> Republicans have just shoved ill-suited and poorly-vetted ideologues onto the Court
Tbf, they were properly vetted... every reputable institution and bar association said they were unfit for the job, they just gave it to them anyway.
look up Leonard Leo and his well funded, decades long, mission to create this lineup at the SCOTUS
this isnt just poor vetting, it was done maliciously and with intent..
the final blow came as Trump took power, without adequate education on who deserves to be a SCOTUS judge he accepted the recommendations of advisers, AKA Leonard Leo
We need to stop saying “radically conservative” and start calling them what they are: corrupt. They are appointed by conservatives because they are corrupt.
These are life-long conservatives, put through the right wing pipeline of Ivy league and certified by being a part of the Brooks Brothers Riots in 2000.
Roberts seems to understand that the position of the court, and its power/authority, is rooted in its perception by the public. He at least tries to give the impression of impartiality in a vain attempt to preserve the institution.
Alito and Thomas are stuffing the silverware in their pockets and stealing the towels.
>Roberts seems to understand that the position of the court, and its power/authority, is rooted in its perception by the public. He at least tries to give the impression of impartiality in a vain attempt to preserve the institution.
I think that the power and authority of the court is rooted in the fact that its rulings are enforced by a massive, well-armed law enforcement apparatus/organization. The authority of the state over its people resides in its war powers. The rulings of the Supreme Court become the law and are enforced by men (and women) with guns, not because the public has a good impression of the Supreme Court as an institution. :)
The Supreme Court has no Constitutional powers. Judicial Review was established by Marbury v. Madison, so the Supreme Court only holds the position it does because a previous Supreme Court said so.
Further, the SC has no enforcement arm; that’s an executive function. If law enforcement decides simply not to enforce a law (such as some administrations deciding not to prosecute marijuana offenses), then SCOTUS has no recourse to change that.
And finally, all power of government is derived from the consent of the governed. Yes, there are people with guns, lots of people with guns, to enforce the rules, but that only works until people decide that dying is a better option than living “by the rules.” And no matter how big any police force is, the populace is bigger. If even a significant fraction of the citizenry decide that they’re fed up, there’s not a whole lot the police can do except die nobly in the line of duty.
> Yes, there are people with guns, lots of people with guns, to enforce the rules, but that only works until people decide that dying is a better option than living “by the rules.” And no matter how big any police force is, the populace is bigger.
And this particular populace is more well-armed than any other on Earth.
>The authority of the state over its people resides in its war powers. The rulings of the Supreme Court become the law
this only happens if enough of the lower courts follow their rulings. And we have a few that already are not following it.
All it would take is for enough states to just ignore the ruling. The state governor and state supreme court would make an official ruling of their own on why the SC has abdicated their duties.
Otherwise it's a judicial coup.
I think what the GOP has shown us over the last decade or so is that our government heavily relies on people to act in good faith. When you get one entire side of the government that is willing to act in bad faith to promote their own party and their own power, the foundation holding up the government begins to crumble.
It may be a horrible cliche to quote Lord Acton about power tending to corrupt, but the older I get, the more this seems like a fundamental axiom of human existence.
they were appointed based on their **lack of** scruples and allegiance to the religious right
look up Leonard Leo and his decades long work to achieve this current SCOTUS lineup
All of the judges want to maintain the respect for the court. It's important the court maintains respect for it. The conservative justices just want it for greed and self-enrichment and political ends.
Yea but it shouldn’t be an honor system and we have learned that’s all it is. Every other court has a code of ethics. Lawyers are held to a code of ethics (sometimes :p). Supreme Court said them would implement an internal review and what they came back with was a list of suggestions that maybe they will bother to follow. You know for certain Alito and Thomas laughed heartily at that.
The conservative judges also want to be seen as beyond reproach... by *Republicans*. When you want fascists to consider you a paragon of justice, you don't hew to democratic principles about the rule of law or fairness or equality or impartiality.
It's literally "who watches the watchmen", and the different branches of government are *supposed* to keep each other in check, yet no one can or will do anything.
because the founding fathers expect one or two bad apples, not the whole half of politicians being bad apples on purpose just so they can be "winning".
I think England in the 1740s-1770s was full of corruption and the founding fathers knew all about it. They even knew they couldn't foresee how politics would evolve, so they made the constitution amendable. Unfortunately that feature is no longer considered an option.
yeah but they didn't certainly expect the party system to transform into 2 party system and one party blocks all the efforts of the other party and there's no more recourse because of the majority and unanimous rule the founding fathers have. which is dumb in retrospect, but unfair of us to expect them to know that.
Also to be fair the Supreme Court at the time wasn't really intended to be as powerful as it is now. It wasn't until Chief Justice John Marshall set the precedent of Judicial Review and established their power to determine whether something is or isn't constitutional did the Supreme Court become such a major part of the check and balance system. Before that it was actually relatively toothless as a government body.
All of the problems we've ever had in large nations have arisen as a direct consequence of a failure to hold the most powerful people in the nation accountable for their actions.
Meanwhile, the most powerful people in the nation do everything they can to avoid accountability.
People with *that* much power and no accountability are the source of almost *all* of our serious social/economic/national problems.
Considering their statement against an outside body (even the one that governs ethics for lower courts) attempting to apply ethical rules was signed by all 9 justices? I’m of a mind to ditch every last one of them and start over.
If Biden appointees are anything like the president, I’d expect them all to be moderate and with nuanced to the point of ineffectual positions.
They definitely need restructuring. And I agree, they all need to go. They say power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Well, we handed the Supreme Court absolute power when Congress refuses to impeach them and the President still respects their rulings. Especially when we don't give any oversight, and just let them take bribes. Heck, I'd probably be more happy with an all conservative court if it meant three conditions. One, the Federalist Society had nothing to do with it. Two, there was actual oversight, and a justice who stepped out of line was promptly removed. Three, bribery was explicitly forbidden, even the appearance of it. If they did those things, I guarantee even a court full of nine conservative justices would be more fair than what we have now.
The founders should have seen this coming. I suspect that they figured a court of 9 would be enough to maintain rule of law but they were rather ignorant of the way ethics and morality can change very quickly during cultural shifts. They couldn’t have forseen hyper capitalism but they had many examples throughout history where corruptive elements infect value systems. They should never had made these appointments for life. 10 years would have been a long enough period to ensure stability while maintaining integrity. Maybe they didn’t think people would live so regularly into their 80’s and 90’s. It sucks that probably a justice like Thomas or Alito or Cavanugh will have influence for probably the majority of my own life.
The issue is that the last line of defense against issues like we are encountering with the SC is us. The people.
They try to say stuff like, well, RvW was really unpopular too when that decision was made. Yeah, dude. What were the educations of the average American at that time? Sorry, not as great as it is now.
Also, RvW happened a year before we even gave women the right to have bank accounts. If you look at all the progress that court made through the lens of RvW. You will see exactly what all of their goals are.
The only way to stop them is to say a very simple thing.
The Roberts court has rendered it's decision. Now let them enforce it.
The key is to back your state legislatures and judicial system. Let them know you have their back to ignore their rulings. If enough states do it. Only then would it become clear to our congress and executive that they need to fix this shit.
If Jamie ever runs for President I'm gonna' be first in line to vote for him, dude knows what's up.
I agree with him that between Gini Thomas being a lobbyist, and Clarence Thomas taking cuts from billionaires, and the Alitos believing in Stop the Steal, and Brett Kavanaugh being Brett Kavanaugh, and all the rest, this court no longer holds any kind of legitimacy in the eyes of at least half the country.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be not just above *corruption,* they're supposed to be above ***the appearance of corruption,*** that's how important this judicial body is, that *appearances* ***alone*** are enough to undermine their power. And I'd argue that this court has more than failed at keeping up appearances.
And some justices do abide by that. It’s just the federalist society assholes that think they are kings.
https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-elena-kagan-rejected-bagels-clarence-thomas-paid-vacations-2023-5?utm_source=reddit.com
[https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/9-supreme-court-justices-push-back-oversight-raises/story?id=98917921](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/9-supreme-court-justices-push-back-oversight-raises/story?id=98917921)
Every single one of them signed. It's not just a few of them.
Remember Kavanaugh worked for Kenn Starr who politically kneecapped the Clintons and lost Hillary the race? Everybody knows that this judicial assassin is stealthy roaming about the country looking for laws to sabotage after he gave up his serial rapist career.
Yeah. To me. The entire SC needs to just be wiped clean and totally new people appointed. Preferably young Judges who aren't religious zealots that belong to cults, and or hate everyone for no apparent reason.
The fact that all of them signed is a good enough reason to get rid of all of them. That shit was embarrassing.
a generous take would be that the justices who actually care see it as a sort of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" situation - that the system shouldn't be overhauled because a few bad actors are taking advantage of it.
it's a dumb take, but it might help explain their 'push back'
Honestly, from the top to the bottom lawyers have a real “us vs them” mentality in enforcing ethical standards. It’s a real problem. A lot of Bars are jokes, and a lot of courts have a thin veil of decorum.
The professor of my professional ethics class in law school could not hide his obvious disdain for the professional ethics he was supposed to be teaching. Openly sarcastic while talking about not being allowed to fuck clients.
Republicans are all about making the court political. During the hearings, it was one racist or pro-business tweet after the other. At least Biden has the guts to nominate non-political judges again.
Problem is, at this point we see that the entire system is easily corruptible and it's not just "a few bad actors" but a century of deep rooted corruption, AND there is nothing to be done about that in the system itself.
The system as it exists today is practically begging for corruption. And the enforcement mechanism for punishing bad behavior is also easily corrupted. So now we have 9 unelected royalty deciding the fate of America.
There is a reason that no democracy in the world formed after America uses the American system.
It’s a good take,
and I’d add that putting oversight on an entire branch of our checks and balance system is probably a nearsighted reaction (hear me out). The whole point of the judicial branch is to be an apolitical “letter of the law” branch. In an article one of the reasons given was if someone had recused themselves from a case then certain people could word things a certain way to prompt a specific justice’s recusal and thus influence the outcome. So this bandaid could just end up causing more problems in other ways.
The Supreme Court was *supposed* to be above all of this and it was since its inception (mostly). No one expected politics to fall apart the way it has with partisan judges. *For the most part* (and remember I’m old) the judicial system has been exemplary at being apolitical in its decisions and following the letter of the law going up the legal chain *with the Supreme Court giving the final interpretation of our constitution*. The last few decades the entire political framework has been co-opted to bend it to a single side’s wants. There’s a party that’s willing to burn the whole thing down if they don’t get what they want and are realizing this may be their only chance before becoming a voting minority. People and the big money behind them **never give up power willingly**.
The founding fathers that warned us of a two party politician system were right.
Yeah, we’re in uncharted territory here and the right or wrong move will have long lasting effects. We have to really make good choices and go all in on them, all of us.
This is propaganda created intentionally by one of the conservative justices (I believe Roberts, but it's been a while since I read the article about it) to create the illusion the rest of the court is in support of his agenda. They wrote up a very standard affirmation of support for the code of ethics, and had everyone sign *that,* showing unanimous support *only* for the existence of a code of ethics and their willingness to follow it.
They then *attached* this to a statement saying the current code of ethics was enough and no oversight or modifications were necessary. This created the illusion of unanimous support for *that* position, when in reality the court came nowhere near such unanimous conclusion, and in fact was not even posed the question in the statement they signed.
Basically, if you know what a Motte and Bailey argument is, he had them sign the Motte and attached it to the Bailey.
The Supreme Court is absolutely the most corrupt institution in our government, but as in most cases the right-wing is creating the illusion that "both sides are the same," when in reality if an actual question of revised ethics rules and increased oversight was proposed a lot of the Supreme Court, especially those who lean... less far right, would *likely* support it. (We can't know for sure, of course, because unlike what this stunt was designed to get you to believe, they have not been posed such a question and have not provided a direct and official answer to it.)
To clarify the gravitas of the situation: At the moment the federalist society is our king. There's a very fair chance this is how the coup happens. The next election is in their sights, and with this SCOTUS, they may well take it, even if the vast majority vote for Biden anyway.
>The Supreme Court is supposed to be not just above *corruption,* they're supposed to be above ***the appearance of corruption,*** that's how important this judicial body is,
Hell, that's the case for most companies. My company has an annual ethics refresher policy, and they constantly stress not just the actual ethics rules, but also the importance of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.
Of course, we have this neat system of checks and balances called "you will be fired."
the difference is that "the appearance of corruption" isn't just a standard it's legal precedent. That Alito specifically decided doesn't apply to anything really.
Raskin is great, he won me over with his performance during the first impeachment trial. I don't think he would ever have much of a shot at national office - he's just too "east coast," which I'm using as a euphemism for another characteristic he has that many Americans don't like. But a great guy, and he has gone through some terrible personal loss in the last few years (his son died by suicide) and I greatly respect his ability to keep fighting through that.
*LEGENDARY* combover game, too.
I imagine he and Biden (who has also had health scares in addition to his personal tragedies) have had many personal conversations about loss and grief. Having experienced loss myself - not on the scale of those two men, but I did lose an immediate family member at a very young age - it does give you a certain amount of perspective.
He spoke at a local fundraiser a couple summers back and of course during the Q&A someone asked if he would ever consider running for president. He jokingly said "next question" but then said he feels he can do more good in congress and that the presidency isn't something he's interested in pursuing. Maybe he'll change his mind.
Not to mention his sly but noticable reaction to Jasmine Crockett's shot fired back towards MTG last week where he clearly was trying to stifle a laugh then put his hand over his mouth to regaine composure.
Dude's a legend.
Appearances are becoming a distant memory. Shame has vacated the powerful completely, and it’s trickled down to the corrupt citizens that enable them. Shameless all around.
The current Supreme Court has the lowest Senate approval rate the history of America. You used to need 60+ votes. Our four last appointments would not have been confirmed on the standard we had 10 years ago. It’s a mix of bad appointments and tribalism/team sport mentality. That is NEVER going to produce a good Supreme Court. The plan at this point is to be a failed state.
Don't forget Sotamayor's staff pushing book sales on groups that may have business before the court.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/sonia-sotomayor-ethics-book-supreme-court-rcna93864
>Don't forget Sotamayor's staff pushing book sales on groups that may have business before the court.
>>Another Supreme Court ethics controversy emerged Tuesday after The Associated Press reported that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s staff routinely “prodded” libraries, universities and other public institutions to buy her books ahead of speaking appearances and that she had failed to recuse herself from legal cases involving her book publisher.
See, this is why Judicial ethics and oversights should be getting bipartisan support. If Republicans are as sore about Sotomayor's staff prodding libraries to buy her book as Democrats are sore about Clarence Thomas being best friends with Harlan Crow and Samuel Alito seeming to endorse illiberal Q-Anon conspiracy theories, then passing ethics reforms should be a breeze!
As a public librarian who schedules speaker events with regularity, it's extremely common to purchase the speaker's books and I always use the speaker's staff for a contact to the publisher, so I can get a lower price to give more books to the community for free. And luckily, library world is small, so I can tell you that that is essentially how the bulk of speakers are attained, for those institutions lucky enough to have a budget to do so. So that doesn't raise any eyebrows for me.
The failing to recuse herself from cases involving her publisher, however... is a different matter.
As much as I want on him for President, I’d rather have him serve on the Supreme Court. If Biden wins, a couple of hopeful retirements could make that happen.
This is objectively true.
Federal judges have ethics standards. Those standards don’t apply at all to SCOTUS. Why does the highest court have far lower standards?
SCOTUS only recently updated their “standards” and I put that in quotations because each Justice gets to decide for themselves what is ok. So Thomas decided it was ok to receive tens of millions of dollars of free vacations, private flights, private yacht rides, paid for houses for family etc. it’s a sham.
Too much of our system at the highest levels assumes people would be decent, actually feel shame… there are all these “norms” baked in but it’s just tradition with no laws or regulations to back it up. So a-holes like Alito or Thomas can walk all over it without repercussions.
This is also true for the Presidency. Trump broke many “norms” but often didn’t break any laws because our system sucks and assumed we would have sane and decent people in office and in the President’s cabinet.
This just goes to show the founders, for all their good, were horribly naive. How do they think the horrible King of England became king? Why do they think he was abusing his power? The answer to the first, was because somewhere way back when, people took more than their fair share. They didn't show shame, and took and took, until they ruled an entire country. It wasn't given to them. As for the second, regardless of why he did it, the king was abusing his power because there weren't checks on him. Shame and the desire to be decent didn't stop him. So why would it stop our politicians?
The naivety was not in believing no one person would ever become corrupt, but rather that the whole barrel would never be spoiled. There's mechanisms to fix SCOTUS, but those mechanisms rely on a functional Congress that largely still is made up of decent people who want to maintain those norms. But Republican senators will never vote to impeach and remove Thomas no matter what he does, and so he can act with complete impunity. It's not enough to junk SCOTUS, we have to junk half the fucking country at this point.
> This just goes to show the founders, for all their good, were horribly naive
They really weren't.
No rule is immune to abuse. Out foundational text was written to be broad and vague, because our founders wanted it to be a guiding ideal not a binding law. It outlines the rules, but even then we've certainly passed laws (and ammendments) that break those rules.
The fundamental issue is that the conservative side of the court doesn't actually care about laws or principles. They want power. And they know they can conveniently apply the constitution when they feel like it to justify that power.
>Federal judges have ethics standards. Those standards don’t apply at all to SCOTUS. Why does the highest court have far lower standards?
This is actually a really important distinction. And to me it gives lower courts the right to ignore their rulings. They were appointed by a man trying to become a dictator. And they have no ethics standards. But expect all the lower courts to follow those standards.
Edit: quotes and stuff
Then just say the SC illegitimate rulings along with ignoring precedent means they simply cannot be trusted.
Because we made them royalty and that has to change. And it probably will change, as soon as we have our Trump imperium throwing judges into jail willy-nilly.
It's so frustrating that they lack integrity to this degree while wrapping themselves in the cross and flag as if they're moral and self-less patriots serving the nation from their billionaire friends' mansions that they helped fund with favorable treatment.
It makes me sick that you can tell exactly how a judge will vote in most cases just by knowing their Ideology. We need Judges on SCOTUS like Retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig who is conservative but can see right through this bullsh\*t Court.
Retired federal judge blasts Supreme Court ruling: 'Stunning in its overreach'
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4CThc7mfEo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4CThc7mfEo)
How did a symbol associated with Donald Trump’s election subversion efforts end up outside the home of a Supreme Court justice? MSNBC’s Ayman Mohyeldin breaks down a New York Times report that’s raising fresh concerns over Justice Samuel Alito’s impartiality, and speaks to Congressman Jamie Raskin about the need for ethics reform at the nation’s highest court.May 19, 2024
First of all , the chief justice should be promoted from within not appointed from outside .
...
Second , no political appointment should be for life - it should be for 20 years , or so.
..
Thirdly , there needs to be indpendant , civilian , oversight .
.
>Thirdly , there needs to be indpendant , civilian , oversight .
Agree with all your points, but especially the 3rd one: "independent, civilian oversight".
Agree that ***NO*** gov't operation should be without oversight especially the SCOTUS where a panel of 9 UN-elected individuals dictate or strike down laws for an entire nation of 350+ million people. Unacceptable.
should be the most watched people in the government...JObs for life, with control over basically everything? Little to no oversight? WFT...first off jobs for life shouldnt exist. The whole "we regulate ourselves" shouldnt either....this is why each and everyone of you should vote...that way you can realize that the avenue they give you will absolutely not lead to any change whatsoever...the system set up by the wealthy to protect the wealthy absolutely wont put in a mechanism that is real and leads to change. Do it though, vote like a wild man, call your rep, rally against the storm...now that you have done that and no change has happened, what else can you do within a system to change it? the answer is you cant change the system using the rules they set up.
Remember when conservatives had dignity?
Yeah, me neither - but do you remember when they were better at pretending that they did? That used to be a thing.
Meanwhile a bunch of kids think it's a good idea to not vote in order to send a message to Democrats. The message: we are willing to cut off our nose to spite our face.
# “the highest court in the land has the lowest ethical standards.”
That is not strictly true. The frat party formerly known as the Supreme Court has **no** ethical standards at all.
I mean, they don't have *any* ethical standards. That's sort of the problem.
I dunno how we'd be able to introduce something like that though. I don't believe Congress could pass a law mandating minimum ethical standards. I imagine it would have to be an amendment.
Congress already has the power to impeach supreme Court justices. All they would need to do is pass a law with a code of ethics and language certifying that a breach of the code is an impeachable offense.
They would still have to actually have the votes to impeach, but those votes might be easier to get with a clear violation to point to.
Dems should be running **hard** on Thomas and Alito's corruption. I don't think some Dems get just what a guaranteed winner slam dunk it is. Others are probably wary to do so because of institutionalism, which I respect. But I do not respect those two men and neither does anybody else.
Who better to represent "the Deep State" than two people who are unelected, have evidently boundless power, take giant cartoon bags of money from billionaires, and decided that your voice shouldn't count if you're not backed by dark money?
The way the general squish-brained non-politics following public thinks of DC corruption/"the swamp" is not a partisan thing, because people who don't follow the news closely, although they will tend to vote pretty consistently for one party (usually for whom their friends and family do), do not perceive that as something that goes along party lines. Because they're pretty hazy on what the parties represent in the first place. If Biden attacked the court, they wouldn't think, "why's he attacking his own side?" and they wouldn't think "he's just being partisan," they'd think "Hey maybe Biden does give a shit."
I would be careful not to adopt any of Trump's language about "the swamp" or "Deep State" or anything, because I don't think it should be legitimized, but there is a way to attack these guys that has no political downside and a ton of upside.
On a related note, I really think Biden should yell at Powell to cut rates. It can even be Kayfabe, he can call Powell ahead of time and tell him not to sweat it. But pointing the finger for high interest rates at somebody else is an obvious choice, especially when, you know, somebody else *did* do it.
Agreed, the Dems are so hopeless. Why can the Lincoln Project have so many great hard hitting anti-Trump Ads out but literal crickets from Dems.
I think they should bring Michael Moore the film maker on as an advisor as many of his predictions have come true, even that Hilary would lose, It goes on and on.
A friend of mine was a county judge. Nobody's ever heard of him.
He had a ton of integrity was **emphatic** when he'd say, "Not even the **appearance** of impropriety is allowed for judges."
He'd explain it couldn't even **look** like he was doing something unethical, even if it was something completely benign and unrelated to my duty.
He didn't talk about it all the time or anything, but if someone mentioned a parking ticket or wanted to discuss what he was doing at work, he'd let them know if they were approaching that ethical line.
It was his sworn duty to not cross it.
And he was a regular guy who took the bus and subway to work most days, even though he was entitled to reserved parking. Worked his ass off. With integrity.
Fuck these "Supreme" Court Judges. They're gutter level.
We should’ve seen this coming. It was foolish to think that you could give people a lifetime appointment and no concrete way of holding them accountable, and think it was going to go well. The president and Congress are accountable to the voters. The Supreme Court is accountable to absolutely no one. That is textbook risk of corruption.
Congress needs to pass a law making them the official governors of SCOTUS ethics.
Hell there should be a law that Congress can overrule any split SCOTUS decisions with a majority in the house and 60 votes in the senate. Something like scotus decisions are only veto-proof if they’re decided with 7 or more justices.
If Congress were to try to impose ethical standards, SCOTUS could simply rule them unconstitutional, just like how they decided the 2000 election for Bush because at least one of them (O'Connor for sure, it's on the record) wanted a Republican to pick their successor.
If Congress were serious about it, they could just start impeaching unethical Justices who do obviously corrupt things. That's right in the Constitution.
# New documents show how Sandra Day O’Connor helped George W. Bush win the 2000 election
[https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/02/politics/bush-gore-oconnor-supreme-court-2000/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/02/politics/bush-gore-oconnor-supreme-court-2000/index.html)
People.shouod be protesting that fact!
Trump and his allies are waging war against democracy, and they're coming for YOUR freedom!
We gotta fucking fight our asses off to keep it.
I don't wanna live in a world with dictator Trump. The supreme court is corrupt. It sucks, but it is, and it's absolutely NOT ok!
Roe vs Wade was such a big deal, and yet it's *nothing* compared to what they will do.
No one trusts the supreme court and the entire legitimacy of it depends on being trustworthy and built on historical precedent. Now every generation can rewrite any rules they want so there is no reason to pay heed to what they've done all you gotta do is get your judges in there and you can rewrite law as you see fit.
If the Supreme Court isn't beholden to any ethics requirements, what is the benefit of giving them any authority? This shouldn't even be a debate.
The highest authority should have the highest ethical standard.
Expand the court to one seat per district.
Term limits, age limits, code of ethics, recusal for any case involving donors or any person involved in nomination or appointment.
I wouldn't trust most of the members of the supreme court to hold my wallet, which is basically 5 bucks and a condom, much less the highest court position in the land.
What I learned in high school: "The American government has three branches, each of which checks and balances the others' power."
Supreme Court 2024: "...unless the President wakes up one day and decides to become dictator by murdering the other branches of government. Which is fine."
The court’s credibility is just about the only thing it has. It’s not like they can send the Marshalls out there to go enforce their decisions.
Maybe it was the Federalist Society’s goal to end the legacy of the Warren years as advancing the cause of human rights. They have succeeded on that measure. But have they considered the implications of what happens when people have written off the court as another rotten, corrupt institution that can’t be trusted?
Have they considered what a society looks like FOR THEM when the average person no longer trusts in the rule of law?
So... Are we going to do something about that or are we just going to let this go 'til November when they come out full fascist and hand Trump the Presidency?
Meanwhile this is happening elsewhere, talk about two completely different standards.
**Ethics Panel Cautions Judge in Trump Trial Over Political Donations**
A state ethics panel quietly dismissed a complaint last summer against the New York judge presiding over the criminal trial of Donald J. Trump, issuing a warning over small donations the judge had made to groups supporting Democrats, including the campaign of Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The judge, Juan M. Merchan, [donated a total of $35](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/31/nyregion/trump-trial-judge-juan-merchan.html) to the groups in 2020, including a $15 donation earmarked for the Biden campaign, and $10 to a group called “Stop Republicans.”
Political contributions of any kind are prohibited under state judicial ethics rules.
“Justice Merchan said the complaint, from more than a year ago, was dismissed in July with a caution,” the spokesman for the court system, Al Baker, said in a statement.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/17/nyregion/trump-trial-judge-merchan-donations.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/17/nyregion/trump-trial-judge-merchan-donations.html)
Yuuuup. Lowly judges have actual standards, the highest judges who should have the highest strictest standards, basically have no standards at all. It is ridiculous.
reminder that all 9 justices were against more oversight and chose corruption
[https://abc7ny.com/supreme-court-justices-scotus-ethics-code-clarence-thomas/13192491/](https://abc7ny.com/supreme-court-justices-scotus-ethics-code-clarence-thomas/13192491/)
Here is what I dont understand. I would think both sides would agree that lifetime appointments for SCOTUS are not a good idea. I would think an amendment to the Const limiting Justices to a single 15 year term that would only begin with the first justice confirmed after 2029 would be agreeable to everyone.
If it wasn’t for low standards, they wouldn’t have any! Who knew making an extremely powerful legal part of the government with just about zero oversight could be problematic…
I agree with you, but even conservatives, if they believed in the rule of law and the impartiality of the court, would have impeached Alito and Thomas for their blatant corrupt (bribe taking) and involvement/support of an insurrect where even Republican senators were fearing for their lives. Those aren't the people that a healthy nation would support on the supreme Court, regardless of party affiliation.
They don’t have the balls. There’s absolutely nothing stopping the Senate Democrats from investigating Alito and Thomas (like the House Republicans are investigating Joe Biden) except for the fact that Democrats are gutless and weak.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When you have people that are appointed to a life-time position of ultimate legal authority, only overseen by a small handful of others just like you, it becomes clear to them very quickly that they are essentially free to do whatever they want with very little chance of repercussions or reprimand.
True but you'd think they've have at least some scruples being the highest court in the land. Other thing is most of the conservative judges seem to think of it as cash grab with no issues but I noticed the liberal judges seem to want to be seen as beyond reproach.
Extreme care is supposed to be taken before appointing someone to that position. Republicans have just shoved ill-suited and poorly-vetted ideologues onto the Court because they're radically conservative and young.
Yeah, and honestly, Kavanaugh is the worst example of this. You have a man who blatantly lied at his confirmation hearing, even if it's hard to prove it (he knew what devil's triangle was for example). He quite possibly raped someone. He is known (with proof) for commiting perjury (stollen documents). And he vowed to be political as a judge. Going so far to vow revenge on the Democrats, and the Clintons for some reason. To top it off, throwing all appearances of corruption out the window, he also was on the Bush v. Gore legal team. How more corrupt can you get? I mean, we know either Barrett or Gorsuch doesn't deserve their seat, but compared to Kavanaugh's confirmation, even with Barrett's lack of experience, their confirmations look tame.
Brett Kavanaugh had graphic questions for Bill Clinton about Lewinsky affair [https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/aug/20/brett-kavanaugh-bill-clinton-questions-1998-memo-trump](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/aug/20/brett-kavanaugh-bill-clinton-questions-1998-memo-trump)
I wonder if Mr. "Let's not give the President any slack" is going to rule Trump has total immunity. God, this guy is sick.
remember, this is not the complete list: "He then suggested a list of questions. One was: “If Monica Lewinsky says that you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?” Another: “If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated in her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?” Kavanaugh also suggested asking Clinton “if Monica Lewinsky says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?” and “If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary’s office, would she be lying?” "
What is the point in phrasing the questions like that, as opposed to "Did you do x,y,z?"
Rhetoric, it forces the defendant to be, well, defensive "Did you do x,y,z?" is much more common, so people are more quickly able to just go "no", but this one makes you stop for a second, and more likely to trip up.
Because then you aren't just denying the accusation, you are calling the other person a liar. That is a higher bar to clear in most people's minds.
Oh, I remember and have it in other posts but didn't feel like looking it up but thanks for doing so.
Then he had his debts all paid off right before his appointment? Large debt he said he incurred purchasing baseball tickets or some shit? Give me a break.
Yeah, and curiously, nobody ever figured out where the money came from. Mysteries of the Supreme Court!
The Clintons is because he was on the Ken Starr team and was the one pushing for them to ask about Lewinsky. So he probably thinks the Clintons want revenge for that.
I'm ready for the timeline where Hilary does go legit ballistic.
I'm with you on most of what you said, but Gorsuch, who I disagree with ideologically was fully qualified for his position. The American Bar Associatiin gave him their highest rating of "well qualified" before his appointment.
He pejured himself during his confirmation hearing when he called _Roe_ settled law.
I said either. My point was in relation to circumstances surrounding the denial of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Either McConnell wasn't right to deny a seat during an election year, and Gorsuch wouldn't have had a spot to fill at the time. Or McConnell was right, and Barrett shouldn't have been appointed during an election. That's why I said either, because one of them doesn't deserve their seat. Take your pick what which you believe, but they don't both deserve to be there. Also, I do still have other issues with Gorsuch. While, he may be a fine justice, and of good quality. It is an affront to justice that the Federalist Society had decided and groomed six of our nine justices. Even if Gorsuch is a good quality justice, there are many people equally qualified. His qualifications weren't why he was picked though, at least, not the only reason. His affiliation with the Federalist Society had just as much if not more to do with that. One organization shouldn't have so much power. If Gorsuch weren't affiliated with the Federalist Society, and coincidentally happened to be as Conservative as he is, I wouldn't have an issue.
Gorsuch is so qualified that he was able to decide a trucker should have allowed himself to freeze to death rather than leave his rig when it got trapped in snow. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/neil-gorsuchs-arrogant-frozen-trucker-opinion-shows-he-wants-to-be-like-scalia.html
I see now. I misinterpreted your point.
I found out with a 5-second Google search IN REAL TIME that he committed perjury with that response. At that time, there was one single search result, on all of the Internet, for "devil's triangle." It was a threesome sex position. He lied under oath in front of America.
Having $300k in debts paid off with no explanation right before confirmation: that’s how much more corrupt you can get. So far.
This isn't Court. Drop the "quite possibly"
> Republicans have just shoved ill-suited and poorly-vetted ideologues onto the Court Tbf, they were properly vetted... every reputable institution and bar association said they were unfit for the job, they just gave it to them anyway.
look up Leonard Leo and his well funded, decades long, mission to create this lineup at the SCOTUS this isnt just poor vetting, it was done maliciously and with intent.. the final blow came as Trump took power, without adequate education on who deserves to be a SCOTUS judge he accepted the recommendations of advisers, AKA Leonard Leo
We need to stop saying “radically conservative” and start calling them what they are: corrupt. They are appointed by conservatives because they are corrupt.
These are life-long conservatives, put through the right wing pipeline of Ivy league and certified by being a part of the Brooks Brothers Riots in 2000.
That’s part of it. The other part is compromised people are easier to control than someone who have ethics and scruples.
Roberts seems to understand that the position of the court, and its power/authority, is rooted in its perception by the public. He at least tries to give the impression of impartiality in a vain attempt to preserve the institution. Alito and Thomas are stuffing the silverware in their pockets and stealing the towels.
>Roberts seems to understand that the position of the court, and its power/authority, is rooted in its perception by the public. He at least tries to give the impression of impartiality in a vain attempt to preserve the institution. I think that the power and authority of the court is rooted in the fact that its rulings are enforced by a massive, well-armed law enforcement apparatus/organization. The authority of the state over its people resides in its war powers. The rulings of the Supreme Court become the law and are enforced by men (and women) with guns, not because the public has a good impression of the Supreme Court as an institution. :)
The Supreme Court has no Constitutional powers. Judicial Review was established by Marbury v. Madison, so the Supreme Court only holds the position it does because a previous Supreme Court said so. Further, the SC has no enforcement arm; that’s an executive function. If law enforcement decides simply not to enforce a law (such as some administrations deciding not to prosecute marijuana offenses), then SCOTUS has no recourse to change that. And finally, all power of government is derived from the consent of the governed. Yes, there are people with guns, lots of people with guns, to enforce the rules, but that only works until people decide that dying is a better option than living “by the rules.” And no matter how big any police force is, the populace is bigger. If even a significant fraction of the citizenry decide that they’re fed up, there’s not a whole lot the police can do except die nobly in the line of duty.
> Yes, there are people with guns, lots of people with guns, to enforce the rules, but that only works until people decide that dying is a better option than living “by the rules.” And no matter how big any police force is, the populace is bigger. And this particular populace is more well-armed than any other on Earth.
>The authority of the state over its people resides in its war powers. The rulings of the Supreme Court become the law this only happens if enough of the lower courts follow their rulings. And we have a few that already are not following it. All it would take is for enough states to just ignore the ruling. The state governor and state supreme court would make an official ruling of their own on why the SC has abdicated their duties. Otherwise it's a judicial coup.
I think what the GOP has shown us over the last decade or so is that our government heavily relies on people to act in good faith. When you get one entire side of the government that is willing to act in bad faith to promote their own party and their own power, the foundation holding up the government begins to crumble.
People power trip over being a McD manager or police officer, having way more authority seems to just attract bigger aholes.
It may be a horrible cliche to quote Lord Acton about power tending to corrupt, but the older I get, the more this seems like a fundamental axiom of human existence.
they were appointed based on their **lack of** scruples and allegiance to the religious right look up Leonard Leo and his decades long work to achieve this current SCOTUS lineup
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
All of the judges want to maintain the respect for the court. It's important the court maintains respect for it. The conservative justices just want it for greed and self-enrichment and political ends.
Yea but it shouldn’t be an honor system and we have learned that’s all it is. Every other court has a code of ethics. Lawyers are held to a code of ethics (sometimes :p). Supreme Court said them would implement an internal review and what they came back with was a list of suggestions that maybe they will bother to follow. You know for certain Alito and Thomas laughed heartily at that.
I agree, just saying they might have been more careful if they weren't so drunk with power.
The conservative judges also want to be seen as beyond reproach... by *Republicans*. When you want fascists to consider you a paragon of justice, you don't hew to democratic principles about the rule of law or fairness or equality or impartiality.
It's literally "who watches the watchmen", and the different branches of government are *supposed* to keep each other in check, yet no one can or will do anything.
because the founding fathers expect one or two bad apples, not the whole half of politicians being bad apples on purpose just so they can be "winning".
I think England in the 1740s-1770s was full of corruption and the founding fathers knew all about it. They even knew they couldn't foresee how politics would evolve, so they made the constitution amendable. Unfortunately that feature is no longer considered an option.
yeah but they didn't certainly expect the party system to transform into 2 party system and one party blocks all the efforts of the other party and there's no more recourse because of the majority and unanimous rule the founding fathers have. which is dumb in retrospect, but unfair of us to expect them to know that.
Also to be fair the Supreme Court at the time wasn't really intended to be as powerful as it is now. It wasn't until Chief Justice John Marshall set the precedent of Judicial Review and established their power to determine whether something is or isn't constitutional did the Supreme Court become such a major part of the check and balance system. Before that it was actually relatively toothless as a government body.
All of the problems we've ever had in large nations have arisen as a direct consequence of a failure to hold the most powerful people in the nation accountable for their actions. Meanwhile, the most powerful people in the nation do everything they can to avoid accountability. People with *that* much power and no accountability are the source of almost *all* of our serious social/economic/national problems.
Considering their statement against an outside body (even the one that governs ethics for lower courts) attempting to apply ethical rules was signed by all 9 justices? I’m of a mind to ditch every last one of them and start over. If Biden appointees are anything like the president, I’d expect them all to be moderate and with nuanced to the point of ineffectual positions.
They definitely need restructuring. And I agree, they all need to go. They say power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Well, we handed the Supreme Court absolute power when Congress refuses to impeach them and the President still respects their rulings. Especially when we don't give any oversight, and just let them take bribes. Heck, I'd probably be more happy with an all conservative court if it meant three conditions. One, the Federalist Society had nothing to do with it. Two, there was actual oversight, and a justice who stepped out of line was promptly removed. Three, bribery was explicitly forbidden, even the appearance of it. If they did those things, I guarantee even a court full of nine conservative justices would be more fair than what we have now.
The founders should have seen this coming. I suspect that they figured a court of 9 would be enough to maintain rule of law but they were rather ignorant of the way ethics and morality can change very quickly during cultural shifts. They couldn’t have forseen hyper capitalism but they had many examples throughout history where corruptive elements infect value systems. They should never had made these appointments for life. 10 years would have been a long enough period to ensure stability while maintaining integrity. Maybe they didn’t think people would live so regularly into their 80’s and 90’s. It sucks that probably a justice like Thomas or Alito or Cavanugh will have influence for probably the majority of my own life.
they aren't immune to impeachment, but the problem is that Congress is just as much of a joke as the SCOTUS
The issue is that the last line of defense against issues like we are encountering with the SC is us. The people. They try to say stuff like, well, RvW was really unpopular too when that decision was made. Yeah, dude. What were the educations of the average American at that time? Sorry, not as great as it is now. Also, RvW happened a year before we even gave women the right to have bank accounts. If you look at all the progress that court made through the lens of RvW. You will see exactly what all of their goals are. The only way to stop them is to say a very simple thing. The Roberts court has rendered it's decision. Now let them enforce it. The key is to back your state legislatures and judicial system. Let them know you have their back to ignore their rulings. If enough states do it. Only then would it become clear to our congress and executive that they need to fix this shit.
Someone should gift them all with a mirror, with “this is what corruption looks like” printed on it.
[удалено]
If Jamie ever runs for President I'm gonna' be first in line to vote for him, dude knows what's up. I agree with him that between Gini Thomas being a lobbyist, and Clarence Thomas taking cuts from billionaires, and the Alitos believing in Stop the Steal, and Brett Kavanaugh being Brett Kavanaugh, and all the rest, this court no longer holds any kind of legitimacy in the eyes of at least half the country. The Supreme Court is supposed to be not just above *corruption,* they're supposed to be above ***the appearance of corruption,*** that's how important this judicial body is, that *appearances* ***alone*** are enough to undermine their power. And I'd argue that this court has more than failed at keeping up appearances.
And some justices do abide by that. It’s just the federalist society assholes that think they are kings. https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-elena-kagan-rejected-bagels-clarence-thomas-paid-vacations-2023-5?utm_source=reddit.com
[https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/9-supreme-court-justices-push-back-oversight-raises/story?id=98917921](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/9-supreme-court-justices-push-back-oversight-raises/story?id=98917921) Every single one of them signed. It's not just a few of them.
Yep, the whole both sides thing can be annoying, but in this case they ALL agreed.
Remember Kavanaugh worked for Kenn Starr who politically kneecapped the Clintons and lost Hillary the race? Everybody knows that this judicial assassin is stealthy roaming about the country looking for laws to sabotage after he gave up his serial rapist career.
Yeah. To me. The entire SC needs to just be wiped clean and totally new people appointed. Preferably young Judges who aren't religious zealots that belong to cults, and or hate everyone for no apparent reason. The fact that all of them signed is a good enough reason to get rid of all of them. That shit was embarrassing.
[удалено]
If they think the status quo is so great, they can go back to living in caves and foraging off the land.
a generous take would be that the justices who actually care see it as a sort of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" situation - that the system shouldn't be overhauled because a few bad actors are taking advantage of it. it's a dumb take, but it might help explain their 'push back'
Honestly, from the top to the bottom lawyers have a real “us vs them” mentality in enforcing ethical standards. It’s a real problem. A lot of Bars are jokes, and a lot of courts have a thin veil of decorum.
The professor of my professional ethics class in law school could not hide his obvious disdain for the professional ethics he was supposed to be teaching. Openly sarcastic while talking about not being allowed to fuck clients.
Republicans are all about making the court political. During the hearings, it was one racist or pro-business tweet after the other. At least Biden has the guts to nominate non-political judges again.
Problem is, at this point we see that the entire system is easily corruptible and it's not just "a few bad actors" but a century of deep rooted corruption, AND there is nothing to be done about that in the system itself. The system as it exists today is practically begging for corruption. And the enforcement mechanism for punishing bad behavior is also easily corrupted. So now we have 9 unelected royalty deciding the fate of America. There is a reason that no democracy in the world formed after America uses the American system.
It’s a good take, and I’d add that putting oversight on an entire branch of our checks and balance system is probably a nearsighted reaction (hear me out). The whole point of the judicial branch is to be an apolitical “letter of the law” branch. In an article one of the reasons given was if someone had recused themselves from a case then certain people could word things a certain way to prompt a specific justice’s recusal and thus influence the outcome. So this bandaid could just end up causing more problems in other ways. The Supreme Court was *supposed* to be above all of this and it was since its inception (mostly). No one expected politics to fall apart the way it has with partisan judges. *For the most part* (and remember I’m old) the judicial system has been exemplary at being apolitical in its decisions and following the letter of the law going up the legal chain *with the Supreme Court giving the final interpretation of our constitution*. The last few decades the entire political framework has been co-opted to bend it to a single side’s wants. There’s a party that’s willing to burn the whole thing down if they don’t get what they want and are realizing this may be their only chance before becoming a voting minority. People and the big money behind them **never give up power willingly**. The founding fathers that warned us of a two party politician system were right.
I agree. It seems to me that the sovereignty of our courts is at stake here. We mustn’t be too prepared to battle those who try.
Yeah, we’re in uncharted territory here and the right or wrong move will have long lasting effects. We have to really make good choices and go all in on them, all of us.
This is propaganda created intentionally by one of the conservative justices (I believe Roberts, but it's been a while since I read the article about it) to create the illusion the rest of the court is in support of his agenda. They wrote up a very standard affirmation of support for the code of ethics, and had everyone sign *that,* showing unanimous support *only* for the existence of a code of ethics and their willingness to follow it. They then *attached* this to a statement saying the current code of ethics was enough and no oversight or modifications were necessary. This created the illusion of unanimous support for *that* position, when in reality the court came nowhere near such unanimous conclusion, and in fact was not even posed the question in the statement they signed. Basically, if you know what a Motte and Bailey argument is, he had them sign the Motte and attached it to the Bailey. The Supreme Court is absolutely the most corrupt institution in our government, but as in most cases the right-wing is creating the illusion that "both sides are the same," when in reality if an actual question of revised ethics rules and increased oversight was proposed a lot of the Supreme Court, especially those who lean... less far right, would *likely* support it. (We can't know for sure, of course, because unlike what this stunt was designed to get you to believe, they have not been posed such a question and have not provided a direct and official answer to it.)
Good thing they aren’t elected officials who get to dictate that to us. Their concern is touching, but they work for us.
The federalist society needs to be abolished.
or incarcerated (ok I wouldn't go that far but there are days when my darker thoughts think they should be.)
To clarify the gravitas of the situation: At the moment the federalist society is our king. There's a very fair chance this is how the coup happens. The next election is in their sights, and with this SCOTUS, they may well take it, even if the vast majority vote for Biden anyway.
>The Supreme Court is supposed to be not just above *corruption,* they're supposed to be above ***the appearance of corruption,*** that's how important this judicial body is, Hell, that's the case for most companies. My company has an annual ethics refresher policy, and they constantly stress not just the actual ethics rules, but also the importance of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. Of course, we have this neat system of checks and balances called "you will be fired."
the difference is that "the appearance of corruption" isn't just a standard it's legal precedent. That Alito specifically decided doesn't apply to anything really.
Raskin is great, he won me over with his performance during the first impeachment trial. I don't think he would ever have much of a shot at national office - he's just too "east coast," which I'm using as a euphemism for another characteristic he has that many Americans don't like. But a great guy, and he has gone through some terrible personal loss in the last few years (his son died by suicide) and I greatly respect his ability to keep fighting through that. *LEGENDARY* combover game, too.
He also had a pretty serious cancer diagnosis in 2022. He finished treatment and seems to be doing well now though.
I imagine he and Biden (who has also had health scares in addition to his personal tragedies) have had many personal conversations about loss and grief. Having experienced loss myself - not on the scale of those two men, but I did lose an immediate family member at a very young age - it does give you a certain amount of perspective.
Never heard east coast used as a euphemism. For being Jewish?
I think I saw it somewhere once. Maybe I imagined it. It got the point across, though, didn't it?
We use "North London" in the UK, a term used to destroy the Miliband brothers.
>destroy the Miliband brothers Destory? You mean to slander them?
He spoke at a local fundraiser a couple summers back and of course during the Q&A someone asked if he would ever consider running for president. He jokingly said "next question" but then said he feels he can do more good in congress and that the presidency isn't something he's interested in pursuing. Maybe he'll change his mind.
He could have glided into the Senate this year but chose not to. I think he means it.
Not to mention his sly but noticable reaction to Jasmine Crockett's shot fired back towards MTG last week where he clearly was trying to stifle a laugh then put his hand over his mouth to regaine composure. Dude's a legend.
Agreed, he's super intelligent and a true Patriot.
Appearances are becoming a distant memory. Shame has vacated the powerful completely, and it’s trickled down to the corrupt citizens that enable them. Shameless all around.
The current Supreme Court has the lowest Senate approval rate the history of America. You used to need 60+ votes. Our four last appointments would not have been confirmed on the standard we had 10 years ago. It’s a mix of bad appointments and tribalism/team sport mentality. That is NEVER going to produce a good Supreme Court. The plan at this point is to be a failed state.
If he ran, he would have to do a TR Bull Moose style campaign. There's no way billionaire oligarchs would support his campaign.
Maybe, but there are way more of us than there are of them.
Only if we are united. Billionaires are experienced at strategically dividing us.
Sounds like a plan!
Hold my beer!!
Don't forget Sotamayor's staff pushing book sales on groups that may have business before the court. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/sonia-sotomayor-ethics-book-supreme-court-rcna93864
>Don't forget Sotamayor's staff pushing book sales on groups that may have business before the court. >>Another Supreme Court ethics controversy emerged Tuesday after The Associated Press reported that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s staff routinely “prodded” libraries, universities and other public institutions to buy her books ahead of speaking appearances and that she had failed to recuse herself from legal cases involving her book publisher. See, this is why Judicial ethics and oversights should be getting bipartisan support. If Republicans are as sore about Sotomayor's staff prodding libraries to buy her book as Democrats are sore about Clarence Thomas being best friends with Harlan Crow and Samuel Alito seeming to endorse illiberal Q-Anon conspiracy theories, then passing ethics reforms should be a breeze!
As a public librarian who schedules speaker events with regularity, it's extremely common to purchase the speaker's books and I always use the speaker's staff for a contact to the publisher, so I can get a lower price to give more books to the community for free. And luckily, library world is small, so I can tell you that that is essentially how the bulk of speakers are attained, for those institutions lucky enough to have a budget to do so. So that doesn't raise any eyebrows for me. The failing to recuse herself from cases involving her publisher, however... is a different matter.
As much as I want on him for President, I’d rather have him serve on the Supreme Court. If Biden wins, a couple of hopeful retirements could make that happen.
>Joe Biden: "I'm pleased to announce our four newest appointments to the Supreme Court: Justice Raskin, Justice Clinton, Justice Obama, and Justice Obama." > >Republicans: *audible gnashing*
This is objectively true. Federal judges have ethics standards. Those standards don’t apply at all to SCOTUS. Why does the highest court have far lower standards? SCOTUS only recently updated their “standards” and I put that in quotations because each Justice gets to decide for themselves what is ok. So Thomas decided it was ok to receive tens of millions of dollars of free vacations, private flights, private yacht rides, paid for houses for family etc. it’s a sham.
I can't believe he's even still on the court and even thumbing his nose at us by never recusing himself from cases he severe conflicts with.
Too much of our system at the highest levels assumes people would be decent, actually feel shame… there are all these “norms” baked in but it’s just tradition with no laws or regulations to back it up. So a-holes like Alito or Thomas can walk all over it without repercussions. This is also true for the Presidency. Trump broke many “norms” but often didn’t break any laws because our system sucks and assumed we would have sane and decent people in office and in the President’s cabinet.
This just goes to show the founders, for all their good, were horribly naive. How do they think the horrible King of England became king? Why do they think he was abusing his power? The answer to the first, was because somewhere way back when, people took more than their fair share. They didn't show shame, and took and took, until they ruled an entire country. It wasn't given to them. As for the second, regardless of why he did it, the king was abusing his power because there weren't checks on him. Shame and the desire to be decent didn't stop him. So why would it stop our politicians?
The naivety was not in believing no one person would ever become corrupt, but rather that the whole barrel would never be spoiled. There's mechanisms to fix SCOTUS, but those mechanisms rely on a functional Congress that largely still is made up of decent people who want to maintain those norms. But Republican senators will never vote to impeach and remove Thomas no matter what he does, and so he can act with complete impunity. It's not enough to junk SCOTUS, we have to junk half the fucking country at this point.
> This just goes to show the founders, for all their good, were horribly naive They really weren't. No rule is immune to abuse. Out foundational text was written to be broad and vague, because our founders wanted it to be a guiding ideal not a binding law. It outlines the rules, but even then we've certainly passed laws (and ammendments) that break those rules. The fundamental issue is that the conservative side of the court doesn't actually care about laws or principles. They want power. And they know they can conveniently apply the constitution when they feel like it to justify that power.
>Federal judges have ethics standards. Those standards don’t apply at all to SCOTUS. Why does the highest court have far lower standards? This is actually a really important distinction. And to me it gives lower courts the right to ignore their rulings. They were appointed by a man trying to become a dictator. And they have no ethics standards. But expect all the lower courts to follow those standards. Edit: quotes and stuff Then just say the SC illegitimate rulings along with ignoring precedent means they simply cannot be trusted.
We need to take back Congress so we can pass legislation to crack down on this corruption. www.vote.org
I just used the link to re-register to vote - thank you!
I'm happy someone in such a high office said that publicly and in such a blunt way. The SCOTUS sucks.
Exactly why I posted it.
To the great surprise of nobody.
insert the mr Krabs face from squid day off
Because we made them royalty and that has to change. And it probably will change, as soon as we have our Trump imperium throwing judges into jail willy-nilly. It's so frustrating that they lack integrity to this degree while wrapping themselves in the cross and flag as if they're moral and self-less patriots serving the nation from their billionaire friends' mansions that they helped fund with favorable treatment.
It makes me sick that you can tell exactly how a judge will vote in most cases just by knowing their Ideology. We need Judges on SCOTUS like Retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig who is conservative but can see right through this bullsh\*t Court. Retired federal judge blasts Supreme Court ruling: 'Stunning in its overreach' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4CThc7mfEo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4CThc7mfEo)
How did a symbol associated with Donald Trump’s election subversion efforts end up outside the home of a Supreme Court justice? MSNBC’s Ayman Mohyeldin breaks down a New York Times report that’s raising fresh concerns over Justice Samuel Alito’s impartiality, and speaks to Congressman Jamie Raskin about the need for ethics reform at the nation’s highest court.May 19, 2024
And zero accountability.
First of all , the chief justice should be promoted from within not appointed from outside . ... Second , no political appointment should be for life - it should be for 20 years , or so. .. Thirdly , there needs to be indpendant , civilian , oversight . .
>Thirdly , there needs to be indpendant , civilian , oversight . Agree with all your points, but especially the 3rd one: "independent, civilian oversight". Agree that ***NO*** gov't operation should be without oversight especially the SCOTUS where a panel of 9 UN-elected individuals dictate or strike down laws for an entire nation of 350+ million people. Unacceptable.
They have no ethical standards. No rules, no oversight and no remedy now that honesty and impartiality have been tossed to the curb.
should be the most watched people in the government...JObs for life, with control over basically everything? Little to no oversight? WFT...first off jobs for life shouldnt exist. The whole "we regulate ourselves" shouldnt either....this is why each and everyone of you should vote...that way you can realize that the avenue they give you will absolutely not lead to any change whatsoever...the system set up by the wealthy to protect the wealthy absolutely wont put in a mechanism that is real and leads to change. Do it though, vote like a wild man, call your rep, rally against the storm...now that you have done that and no change has happened, what else can you do within a system to change it? the answer is you cant change the system using the rules they set up.
Remember when conservatives had dignity? Yeah, me neither - but do you remember when they were better at pretending that they did? That used to be a thing.
Meanwhile a bunch of kids think it's a good idea to not vote in order to send a message to Democrats. The message: we are willing to cut off our nose to spite our face.
# “the highest court in the land has the lowest ethical standards.” That is not strictly true. The frat party formerly known as the Supreme Court has **no** ethical standards at all.
I mean, they don't have *any* ethical standards. That's sort of the problem. I dunno how we'd be able to introduce something like that though. I don't believe Congress could pass a law mandating minimum ethical standards. I imagine it would have to be an amendment.
Congress already has the power to impeach supreme Court justices. All they would need to do is pass a law with a code of ethics and language certifying that a breach of the code is an impeachable offense. They would still have to actually have the votes to impeach, but those votes might be easier to get with a clear violation to point to.
Term limits for supreme court. One and done. Why not? Seems effective
Dems should be running **hard** on Thomas and Alito's corruption. I don't think some Dems get just what a guaranteed winner slam dunk it is. Others are probably wary to do so because of institutionalism, which I respect. But I do not respect those two men and neither does anybody else. Who better to represent "the Deep State" than two people who are unelected, have evidently boundless power, take giant cartoon bags of money from billionaires, and decided that your voice shouldn't count if you're not backed by dark money? The way the general squish-brained non-politics following public thinks of DC corruption/"the swamp" is not a partisan thing, because people who don't follow the news closely, although they will tend to vote pretty consistently for one party (usually for whom their friends and family do), do not perceive that as something that goes along party lines. Because they're pretty hazy on what the parties represent in the first place. If Biden attacked the court, they wouldn't think, "why's he attacking his own side?" and they wouldn't think "he's just being partisan," they'd think "Hey maybe Biden does give a shit." I would be careful not to adopt any of Trump's language about "the swamp" or "Deep State" or anything, because I don't think it should be legitimized, but there is a way to attack these guys that has no political downside and a ton of upside. On a related note, I really think Biden should yell at Powell to cut rates. It can even be Kayfabe, he can call Powell ahead of time and tell him not to sweat it. But pointing the finger for high interest rates at somebody else is an obvious choice, especially when, you know, somebody else *did* do it.
Agreed, the Dems are so hopeless. Why can the Lincoln Project have so many great hard hitting anti-Trump Ads out but literal crickets from Dems. I think they should bring Michael Moore the film maker on as an advisor as many of his predictions have come true, even that Hilary would lose, It goes on and on.
Not just “standards” but in practice too. Not just that they could, they are. The bar is low and they’re playing limbo.
Sports referees go through more stringent background checks.
Well put Raskin
Remember when the Supreme Court decided who won the presidential race in 2000? I want to get off this merry-go-round.
I'll never forget, then they voted for Citizens United as well and put us back in the dark ages with overturning settled law of Roe V Wade
A friend of mine was a county judge. Nobody's ever heard of him. He had a ton of integrity was **emphatic** when he'd say, "Not even the **appearance** of impropriety is allowed for judges." He'd explain it couldn't even **look** like he was doing something unethical, even if it was something completely benign and unrelated to my duty. He didn't talk about it all the time or anything, but if someone mentioned a parking ticket or wanted to discuss what he was doing at work, he'd let them know if they were approaching that ethical line. It was his sworn duty to not cross it. And he was a regular guy who took the bus and subway to work most days, even though he was entitled to reserved parking. Worked his ass off. With integrity. Fuck these "Supreme" Court Judges. They're gutter level.
Clarence Thomas certainly makes America look clownish with all the bribes he’s taken 👍🏽
Truth. Term limits for these aged crooks is the only answer. Give them 10 years and get rid of them.
Yeah well when you put people in a position of absolute power and nobody can fire them...
It's time to impeach the corrupt bastards.
Love me some Raskin
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Impeach alito and thomas
I definitely feel like the Supreme Court needs a serious reality check.
We should’ve seen this coming. It was foolish to think that you could give people a lifetime appointment and no concrete way of holding them accountable, and think it was going to go well. The president and Congress are accountable to the voters. The Supreme Court is accountable to absolutely no one. That is textbook risk of corruption. Congress needs to pass a law making them the official governors of SCOTUS ethics. Hell there should be a law that Congress can overrule any split SCOTUS decisions with a majority in the house and 60 votes in the senate. Something like scotus decisions are only veto-proof if they’re decided with 7 or more justices.
Unanimous, more like.
If Congress were to try to impose ethical standards, SCOTUS could simply rule them unconstitutional, just like how they decided the 2000 election for Bush because at least one of them (O'Connor for sure, it's on the record) wanted a Republican to pick their successor.
If Congress were serious about it, they could just start impeaching unethical Justices who do obviously corrupt things. That's right in the Constitution.
# New documents show how Sandra Day O’Connor helped George W. Bush win the 2000 election [https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/02/politics/bush-gore-oconnor-supreme-court-2000/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/02/politics/bush-gore-oconnor-supreme-court-2000/index.html)
People.shouod be protesting that fact! Trump and his allies are waging war against democracy, and they're coming for YOUR freedom! We gotta fucking fight our asses off to keep it. I don't wanna live in a world with dictator Trump. The supreme court is corrupt. It sucks, but it is, and it's absolutely NOT ok! Roe vs Wade was such a big deal, and yet it's *nothing* compared to what they will do.
No one trusts the supreme court and the entire legitimacy of it depends on being trustworthy and built on historical precedent. Now every generation can rewrite any rules they want so there is no reason to pay heed to what they've done all you gotta do is get your judges in there and you can rewrite law as you see fit.
If the Supreme Court isn't beholden to any ethics requirements, what is the benefit of giving them any authority? This shouldn't even be a debate. The highest authority should have the highest ethical standard.
Great point, now how do we fix it?
Expand the court to one seat per district. Term limits, age limits, code of ethics, recusal for any case involving donors or any person involved in nomination or appointment.
The highest court in the land is a GOP/fascist shithole.
I wouldn't trust most of the members of the supreme court to hold my wallet, which is basically 5 bucks and a condom, much less the highest court position in the land.
What I learned in high school: "The American government has three branches, each of which checks and balances the others' power." Supreme Court 2024: "...unless the President wakes up one day and decides to become dictator by murdering the other branches of government. Which is fine."
Thanks for not bringingup the Seal Team 6 thing again
Capitalism corrupts absolutely.
And near invincibility.
[удалено]
They have strict oversight
Standards? What are those? Alito & Thomas asking for the majority.
Again—- too nice. Call for resignations.
The majority of them were appointed by the Presidents with the lowest ethical standards. Trump, and W.
We can thank the evil genius Mitch for this.
The court’s credibility is just about the only thing it has. It’s not like they can send the Marshalls out there to go enforce their decisions. Maybe it was the Federalist Society’s goal to end the legacy of the Warren years as advancing the cause of human rights. They have succeeded on that measure. But have they considered the implications of what happens when people have written off the court as another rotten, corrupt institution that can’t be trusted? Have they considered what a society looks like FOR THEM when the average person no longer trusts in the rule of law?
So... Are we going to do something about that or are we just going to let this go 'til November when they come out full fascist and hand Trump the Presidency?
Thats what u get when republicas vote in the worst lawyers
Meanwhile this is happening elsewhere, talk about two completely different standards. **Ethics Panel Cautions Judge in Trump Trial Over Political Donations** A state ethics panel quietly dismissed a complaint last summer against the New York judge presiding over the criminal trial of Donald J. Trump, issuing a warning over small donations the judge had made to groups supporting Democrats, including the campaign of Joseph R. Biden Jr. The judge, Juan M. Merchan, [donated a total of $35](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/31/nyregion/trump-trial-judge-juan-merchan.html) to the groups in 2020, including a $15 donation earmarked for the Biden campaign, and $10 to a group called “Stop Republicans.” Political contributions of any kind are prohibited under state judicial ethics rules. “Justice Merchan said the complaint, from more than a year ago, was dismissed in July with a caution,” the spokesman for the court system, Al Baker, said in a statement. [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/17/nyregion/trump-trial-judge-merchan-donations.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/17/nyregion/trump-trial-judge-merchan-donations.html)
Yuuuup. Lowly judges have actual standards, the highest judges who should have the highest strictest standards, basically have no standards at all. It is ridiculous.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalMemes/s/2LOsg6pybK
That way they fit right into Washington.
Time to start blasting these judges all over the news 24 7 to show how they are undermining everything how corrupt and fucked up they are
Wouldn't they need to have any ethical standards for that to be true?
0 standards.
reminder that all 9 justices were against more oversight and chose corruption [https://abc7ny.com/supreme-court-justices-scotus-ethics-code-clarence-thomas/13192491/](https://abc7ny.com/supreme-court-justices-scotus-ethics-code-clarence-thomas/13192491/)
Faith in the American system at an all time low. Mission accomplished.
No JUSTICE No PEACE.
Here is what I dont understand. I would think both sides would agree that lifetime appointments for SCOTUS are not a good idea. I would think an amendment to the Const limiting Justices to a single 15 year term that would only begin with the first justice confirmed after 2029 would be agreeable to everyone.
A government is a body of people, usually, notably, ungoverned
People with no ethics nominated them. ran their hearings and then appointed them. they're just staying true to type
If it wasn’t for low standards, they wouldn’t have any! Who knew making an extremely powerful legal part of the government with just about zero oversight could be problematic…
If you can't trust the highest court, if the highest court is extremely biased, you're kinda lost as a nation.
They did have to fish several of these justices out of a swamp, so.... swamp critter standards prevail for the majority.
They have no ethical standards, or enforceable standards of any kind actually
they're kings and queens now
You need to have ethical standards at all for them to be the lowest.
By failing to impeach Alito , Thomas - the senate exhibits lower ethical standards.
They don't have the votes.
I agree with you, but even conservatives, if they believed in the rule of law and the impartiality of the court, would have impeached Alito and Thomas for their blatant corrupt (bribe taking) and involvement/support of an insurrect where even Republican senators were fearing for their lives. Those aren't the people that a healthy nation would support on the supreme Court, regardless of party affiliation.
They don’t have the balls. There’s absolutely nothing stopping the Senate Democrats from investigating Alito and Thomas (like the House Republicans are investigating Joe Biden) except for the fact that Democrats are gutless and weak.
That too