Friends, As public trust in the Supreme Court drops to a new low, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are pushing back against a firestorm of ethics controversies involving payoffs to them by wealthy Republicans. When Thomas’s annual financial disclosure was released Thursday — revealing another three private jet trips he accepted last year from real estate magnate and GOP megadonor Harlan Crow and amending several “mistakes” from previous years — Thomas’s personal attorney circulated a six-page statement tearing into “left wing” groups that he said had “weaponized” ethics against Thomas.
I find the arrogance of both justices, who in fact are servants of the people, when being held accountable form their actions quite astonishing. They clearly see themselves as far above citizens, almost like royalty. Actually I am sure they feel they are above the law. Their behaviours are the same and Trump and his GOP MAGA elites and theybseem to be reenforcing each other. It is up to the people to hold them accountable now and have the elected legislators remove them from the Court . For this to happen the MAGA dominated GOP has to be outvoted big time in 2024.
John Roberts won't insist because he is likely compromised himself, or vulnerable. The court won't approve it because 6 of them are conservative and unlikely to admit any of them did anything wrong. I am not even sure the three "liberals" would do it. So that leaves congress passing a law, which won't happen if congress is split between the parties. Democrats will vote for it, Republicans won't because it is "their" justices caught with hands in the till. So it comes down to voters. Is it enough of an issue to sway voters one way or the other? Likely not, but if tied to issues like abortion, freedom of the press, and voting rights it just might have some impact. We have to change the make-up of congress before ethics demands will pass.
The choices are not fully visible so I will say only that, yes, the people demand that the Supreme Court abide by the same ethics rules as all other federal judges and government officials. It just isn’t reasonable that they should be above having an ethics standard applied to their conduct. Who do they think they are, royalty? They hold high office and need to live up to their obligations to their fellow citizens. If they don’t get that they aren’t fit to serve.
So could this be put on the ballot in every state and all of us citizens vote on it?We should have a say in this,those rulings they pass judgement on affect every one of us.
I also believe that there needs to be term limits for SCOTUS justices,and stricter rules about how anyone gets put on the bench.For instance,no more foolishness like what tfg did with Amy Coney Barrett!I don't care what anyone says,that crap was unethical!!!And also what happened with Obama's pick,Merrick Garland, being all but ignored,what the hell was that?Nobody should EVER be able to make,let alone enforce,that kind of decision!
For definite certain there needs to be heavy duty changes.How the bloody hell are they above the law and untouchable?That's a load of straight up hooey!
We also need to be able to impose term limits on Congress,no one should be allowed to be repeatedly reelected for years on end.People like Mitch McConnell should have been out of office decades ago.(I also believe he is having low blood sugar episodes,some people could be hypoglycemic without being diabetic.It can make a person seem disoriented and mimic a seizure.)
And we have a problem with several Congresscritters too far past their prime with chronic illnesses that refuse to just step away and let someone else be elected in their place.
Until we find a way to solve these issues,the people who are in SCOTUS and Congress will continue to work for the highest bidders and to Hell with the rest of us.(How about Publicly funded elections,anyone?No more obscenely wealthy people buying our public servants for their personal use!)
It doesn't matter how the judges feel about being placed under scrutiny when it comes to declaring gifts and groutites given to them by private concerns. The integrity of the court is at stake. The only reasons why the current members of the Supreme Court wouldn't want to be treated like all the other elected officials when it comes to declaring special considerations from outside individuals or originations gives cause for concern. Its a healthy idea to enact provisions that would force the members of the Supreme Court to divulge any and all gifts from anywhere. Those who wear the "Robs" should have no problem with personal honesty.
Both Thomas and Alito should have been investigated by DOJ for crimes like bribery and perjury long ago. There are times when DOJ has a conflict, but DOJ is not a party in every SCOTUS case, and where it is a party, a special prosecutor should have been named.
IMHO Thomas and Alito should have been asked, beginning many yeas ago to recuse themselves in many cases. However, the parties are cowards and rarely bring conflicts into question. . 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge, applies to justices:
,
(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
The decision whether a judge’s impartiality can “ ‘reasonably be questioned’ ” is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they were surmised or reported. See Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2000) (Rehnquist, C. J.) (opinion respecting recusal). To my knowledge, since the Scalia duck hunting incident in 2004, recusal has not been addressed in a single opinion. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-475.ZA.html
The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law).. There is no reason why DOJ cannot request a writ, ask for an opportunity to be heard before the court and commence discovery.
Yes to all of the above. The Highest Court in the Land must have the highest ethical standards in the land. Justices who cannot understand the need for the highest ethical standards and abide by them should be forced to resign by Roberts, Congress, and public opinion. If the unethical Justices still refuse to resign/retire, the SCOTUS faces a Constitutional crisis. Perhaps the SCOTUS must vote the unethical Justices off the court.
While on the topic of unethical Justices who have secretly accepted gifts from people who have issues before the Court, let's take a moment to think about how J6 was possible.
Over time, has the SC allowed unethial "media" to spread lies? Has the SC confused "free speech" with unlimited spending by special interests? Yes.
In fact, when wealthy interests buy up a finite amount of prime time commercials during elections, it limits what other candidates can buy and say during prime time. In fact, large buys of wealthy special intests drive airtime prices up, thus limiting other candidates' speech.
The Supreme Court has protected the speech of corporate interests to the detriment of individuals and labor. The SCOTUS has allowed wealthy special interests to have disporportionate speech (airtime), while limiting others who cannot afford as much airtime. Sadly, often candidates cannot even afford to respond to the lies and distortions of the well funded corporate special interests.
When an angry armed group stormed the Capital to stop the peaceful transfer of power, and attempted a coup because they believed unethical media sources and individuals who had become comfortable with spouting hate speech and lies, did the SCOTUS wonder how people could believe the election was actually stolen with zero proof? Did they realize they enabled the fake news that drove the insurrectionists?
Indeed, many individuals are responsible for the J6 insurrection. However, has the Roberts' Court laid the ground work so that millions of people can be intentionally misinformed? Has near unlimited political spending driven people to insurrection because they had enough of the "rigged system," and desperately wanted a candidate who said he would "drain the swamp?" The swamp was, in fact, created by near unlimited lobbyist spending and influence made legal by the Supreme Court.
On January 6, while the huge fire was burning on the Capital steps across the street from the Supreme Court, I wonder if it occurred to Justices that unlimited political spending, and biased media mascarading as journalism, has created a real mess and eroded our Democracy. After hearing Alito's and Thomas' recent comments about their unethical actions, I doubt they get it. "Isn't that ironic?"
How can you trust Congress to pass anything? Half of the justices on the court should be impeached, removed, whatever or however it could happen, and get them the hell out of there!!! They are not for the people, they are for themselves .😡
"Checks and Balances" is a system that allows each branch of a government to amend or veto acts of another branch so as to prevent any one branch from having too much power. (From a quick search). Clearly this SCOTUS is out of balance and needs to be checked by Congress.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely". These 'justices' believe they are above the law, that is plain to see. They do not even pretend to care about fairness and ethics that other branches of government must abide by.
As disappointing and disgraceful as the conduct of Alito and Thomas has been, the cowardly lack of leadership from Roberts is even more so. The chief job of the Chief Justice, and of all the justices, is to resolve disputes. Yet, Roberts is afraid to touch a dispute bubbling up around him from among his own back benches. Doesn't want to get his hands dirty. Meanwhile, the integrity and respect of the Supreme Court crumbles beneath his feet, threatening to destroy the Court’s ability to address and settle all other disputes that come before it. The facts cry out for him to “Do something!” “Nope,” he replies. “I’d rather not.”
Let me see, now. It seems the DOJ is being weaponized, law enforcement is being weaponized, criminal justice is being weaponized, and now, judicial ethics is being weaponized.
It seems the law & order party are claiming law & order is being weaponized, right ‽
Supreme Court had numerous opportunities to establish their own Code of Ethics, which would have to some degree begun the process for building back public trust. Some thought themselves above the concerns of the very people they are sworn to protect, and for what can only be considered serving their own personal interests, broke widely accepted Codes of Ethics. So Congress must act, because the Supreme Court will not
To today's question I answered "other." Fact is, I expected Alito's move months ago, and - sad but true - I think he's right. I said as much here months ago, as well. On the other hand, a constitutional amendment should be able to shut that wanker Alito's trap right up, and such an amendment >may< find bi-partisan support - but probably not before Alito - and probably everyone else here - has been rotting in his damn grave for a long time.
I would hope that Supreme Court justices would have a greater sense of morality and precedent than they do. I expect a justice who knows the laws would follow them and have respect for them but obviously I am wrong! It is a shame we found out they are just like spoiled brats that think they can do whatever they want because they have a lifetime appointment and no constraints. Whatever happened to respect for the office and their honor?
I find the arrogance of both justices, who in fact are servants of the people, when being held accountable form their actions quite astonishing. They clearly see themselves as far above citizens, almost like royalty. Actually I am sure they feel they are above the law. Their behaviours are the same and Trump and his GOP MAGA elites and theybseem to be reenforcing each other. It is up to the people to hold them accountable now and have the elected legislators remove them from the Court . For this to happen the MAGA dominated GOP has to be outvoted big time in 2024.
John Roberts won't insist because he is likely compromised himself, or vulnerable. The court won't approve it because 6 of them are conservative and unlikely to admit any of them did anything wrong. I am not even sure the three "liberals" would do it. So that leaves congress passing a law, which won't happen if congress is split between the parties. Democrats will vote for it, Republicans won't because it is "their" justices caught with hands in the till. So it comes down to voters. Is it enough of an issue to sway voters one way or the other? Likely not, but if tied to issues like abortion, freedom of the press, and voting rights it just might have some impact. We have to change the make-up of congress before ethics demands will pass.
The choices are not fully visible so I will say only that, yes, the people demand that the Supreme Court abide by the same ethics rules as all other federal judges and government officials. It just isn’t reasonable that they should be above having an ethics standard applied to their conduct. Who do they think they are, royalty? They hold high office and need to live up to their obligations to their fellow citizens. If they don’t get that they aren’t fit to serve.
So could this be put on the ballot in every state and all of us citizens vote on it?We should have a say in this,those rulings they pass judgement on affect every one of us.
I also believe that there needs to be term limits for SCOTUS justices,and stricter rules about how anyone gets put on the bench.For instance,no more foolishness like what tfg did with Amy Coney Barrett!I don't care what anyone says,that crap was unethical!!!And also what happened with Obama's pick,Merrick Garland, being all but ignored,what the hell was that?Nobody should EVER be able to make,let alone enforce,that kind of decision!
For definite certain there needs to be heavy duty changes.How the bloody hell are they above the law and untouchable?That's a load of straight up hooey!
We also need to be able to impose term limits on Congress,no one should be allowed to be repeatedly reelected for years on end.People like Mitch McConnell should have been out of office decades ago.(I also believe he is having low blood sugar episodes,some people could be hypoglycemic without being diabetic.It can make a person seem disoriented and mimic a seizure.)
And we have a problem with several Congresscritters too far past their prime with chronic illnesses that refuse to just step away and let someone else be elected in their place.
Until we find a way to solve these issues,the people who are in SCOTUS and Congress will continue to work for the highest bidders and to Hell with the rest of us.(How about Publicly funded elections,anyone?No more obscenely wealthy people buying our public servants for their personal use!)
Just food for thought, y'all!!
It doesn't matter how the judges feel about being placed under scrutiny when it comes to declaring gifts and groutites given to them by private concerns. The integrity of the court is at stake. The only reasons why the current members of the Supreme Court wouldn't want to be treated like all the other elected officials when it comes to declaring special considerations from outside individuals or originations gives cause for concern. Its a healthy idea to enact provisions that would force the members of the Supreme Court to divulge any and all gifts from anywhere. Those who wear the "Robs" should have no problem with personal honesty.
Both Thomas and Alito should have been investigated by DOJ for crimes like bribery and perjury long ago. There are times when DOJ has a conflict, but DOJ is not a party in every SCOTUS case, and where it is a party, a special prosecutor should have been named.
The current judicial code should apply to SCOTUS. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/governance-judicial-conference
IMHO Thomas and Alito should have been asked, beginning many yeas ago to recuse themselves in many cases. However, the parties are cowards and rarely bring conflicts into question. . 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge, applies to justices:
,
(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
The decision whether a judge’s impartiality can “ ‘reasonably be questioned’ ” is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they were surmised or reported. See Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2000) (Rehnquist, C. J.) (opinion respecting recusal). To my knowledge, since the Scalia duck hunting incident in 2004, recusal has not been addressed in a single opinion. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-475.ZA.html
The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law).. There is no reason why DOJ cannot request a writ, ask for an opportunity to be heard before the court and commence discovery.
Yes to all of the above. The Highest Court in the Land must have the highest ethical standards in the land. Justices who cannot understand the need for the highest ethical standards and abide by them should be forced to resign by Roberts, Congress, and public opinion. If the unethical Justices still refuse to resign/retire, the SCOTUS faces a Constitutional crisis. Perhaps the SCOTUS must vote the unethical Justices off the court.
While on the topic of unethical Justices who have secretly accepted gifts from people who have issues before the Court, let's take a moment to think about how J6 was possible.
Over time, has the SC allowed unethial "media" to spread lies? Has the SC confused "free speech" with unlimited spending by special interests? Yes.
In fact, when wealthy interests buy up a finite amount of prime time commercials during elections, it limits what other candidates can buy and say during prime time. In fact, large buys of wealthy special intests drive airtime prices up, thus limiting other candidates' speech.
The Supreme Court has protected the speech of corporate interests to the detriment of individuals and labor. The SCOTUS has allowed wealthy special interests to have disporportionate speech (airtime), while limiting others who cannot afford as much airtime. Sadly, often candidates cannot even afford to respond to the lies and distortions of the well funded corporate special interests.
When an angry armed group stormed the Capital to stop the peaceful transfer of power, and attempted a coup because they believed unethical media sources and individuals who had become comfortable with spouting hate speech and lies, did the SCOTUS wonder how people could believe the election was actually stolen with zero proof? Did they realize they enabled the fake news that drove the insurrectionists?
Indeed, many individuals are responsible for the J6 insurrection. However, has the Roberts' Court laid the ground work so that millions of people can be intentionally misinformed? Has near unlimited political spending driven people to insurrection because they had enough of the "rigged system," and desperately wanted a candidate who said he would "drain the swamp?" The swamp was, in fact, created by near unlimited lobbyist spending and influence made legal by the Supreme Court.
On January 6, while the huge fire was burning on the Capital steps across the street from the Supreme Court, I wonder if it occurred to Justices that unlimited political spending, and biased media mascarading as journalism, has created a real mess and eroded our Democracy. After hearing Alito's and Thomas' recent comments about their unethical actions, I doubt they get it. "Isn't that ironic?"
How can you trust Congress to pass anything? Half of the justices on the court should be impeached, removed, whatever or however it could happen, and get them the hell out of there!!! They are not for the people, they are for themselves .😡
It will take….. All Of The Above.
"Checks and Balances" is a system that allows each branch of a government to amend or veto acts of another branch so as to prevent any one branch from having too much power. (From a quick search). Clearly this SCOTUS is out of balance and needs to be checked by Congress.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely". These 'justices' believe they are above the law, that is plain to see. They do not even pretend to care about fairness and ethics that other branches of government must abide by.
As disappointing and disgraceful as the conduct of Alito and Thomas has been, the cowardly lack of leadership from Roberts is even more so. The chief job of the Chief Justice, and of all the justices, is to resolve disputes. Yet, Roberts is afraid to touch a dispute bubbling up around him from among his own back benches. Doesn't want to get his hands dirty. Meanwhile, the integrity and respect of the Supreme Court crumbles beneath his feet, threatening to destroy the Court’s ability to address and settle all other disputes that come before it. The facts cry out for him to “Do something!” “Nope,” he replies. “I’d rather not.”
Let me see, now. It seems the DOJ is being weaponized, law enforcement is being weaponized, criminal justice is being weaponized, and now, judicial ethics is being weaponized.
It seems the law & order party are claiming law & order is being weaponized, right ‽
Supreme Court had numerous opportunities to establish their own Code of Ethics, which would have to some degree begun the process for building back public trust. Some thought themselves above the concerns of the very people they are sworn to protect, and for what can only be considered serving their own personal interests, broke widely accepted Codes of Ethics. So Congress must act, because the Supreme Court will not
To today's question I answered "other." Fact is, I expected Alito's move months ago, and - sad but true - I think he's right. I said as much here months ago, as well. On the other hand, a constitutional amendment should be able to shut that wanker Alito's trap right up, and such an amendment >may< find bi-partisan support - but probably not before Alito - and probably everyone else here - has been rotting in his damn grave for a long time.
I would hope that Supreme Court justices would have a greater sense of morality and precedent than they do. I expect a justice who knows the laws would follow them and have respect for them but obviously I am wrong! It is a shame we found out they are just like spoiled brats that think they can do whatever they want because they have a lifetime appointment and no constraints. Whatever happened to respect for the office and their honor?