Jump to content

A Court With No Ethical Standards, Constraints, or Oversight


icanthearyou

Recommended Posts

Now that politics is part of our courts, even the Supreme Court, particularly the Supreme Court, requires oversight.

Now that the Supreme Court courts lobbyists and special interests, oversight is essential.

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...




If we have oversight of the Court, we lose the independence of the 3rd branch of government altogether.  We should not risk that.  Even with an ultra right wing majority on the court, they still provide structural integrity.   What we could consider are term limits for members of the court.  That stops short of oversight, yet accomplishes some of the same goals.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, AU9377 said:

If we have oversight of the Court, we lose the independence of the 3rd branch of government altogether.  We should not risk that.  Even with an ultra right wing majority on the court, they still provide structural integrity.   What we could consider are term limits for members of the court.  That stops short of oversight, yet accomplishes some of the same goals.

Strongly disagree.  Ethical oversight has no impact on judicial rulings.  Lack of ethical oversight assures there will be a lack of independence in judicial rulings.

Everything changed with the Powell memo.  The court has decided to be political.  Political institutions require ethical oversight.

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Strongly disagree.  Ethical oversight has no impact on judicial rulings.  Lack of ethical oversight assures there will be a lack of independence in judicial rulings.

Everything changed with the Powell memo.  The court has decided to be political.  Political institutions require ethical oversight.

The court has always been political to some degree.  In 1937, FDR threatened to increase the number of judges to 15 if they ruled his programs unconstitutional.  That was known as the switch in time that saved nine.

https://courthawk.com/court-history-the-switch-in-time-that-saved-nine/

I agree that the court, as currently constructed, is heavily slanted to the political right, however, elections have consequences and the only people to blame are those that sat at home and allowed Trump to win over Hillary.  But for that election, the court would look much different than it does today. 

The constitution doesn't allow for the type of oversight you want.  To do so would require a constitutional amendment.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

The court has always been political to some degree.  In 1937, FDR threatened to increase the number of judges to 15 if they ruled his programs unconstitutional.  That was known as the switch in time that saved nine.

https://courthawk.com/court-history-the-switch-in-time-that-saved-nine/

I agree that the court, as currently constructed, is heavily slanted to the political right, however, elections have consequences and the only people to blame are those that sat at home and allowed Trump to win over Hillary.  But for that election, the court would look much different than it does today. 

The constitution doesn't allow for the type of oversight you want.  To do so would require a constitutional amendment.

I am not talking about their political biases.  I am talking about how they are actively participating in politics, how they are inviting lobbyists, special interests to influence/purchase their power.

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

I don’t see any of the justices being influenced by anything but their own deep convictions.

Then there shouldn't be any issues or objections to additional rules of ethics and conduct placed on the Supreme Court. It would only increase confidence in the court and it's future, and if all the justices are fully within ethical boundaries anyway, it would have no influence on them. 

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Then there shouldn't be any issues or objections to additional rules of ethics and conduct placed on the Supreme Court. It would only increase confidence in the court and it's future, and if all the justices are fully within ethical boundaries anyway, it would have no influence on them. 

Who in your mind is ethical enough to administer ethics to the Supreme Court? 

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2023 at 3:27 PM, icanthearyou said:

Now that politics is part of our courts, even the Supreme Court, particularly the Supreme Court, requires oversight.

Now that the Supreme Court courts lobbyists and special interests, oversight is essential.

 

History tells us politics has always been part of the courts, even the supreme court. Simply no cause for concern here unless you are a radical pawn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in no way discussing politics.  This is about ethics.  NO ONE should be above ethical oversight.  The Supreme Court is for sale?

Are you people on dope?

  • Facepalm 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to itch, the court was fine until recently when conservatives gained an advantage. Prior to that there were no ethics issue whatsoever. Yawn.

What you are seeing now is a power hungry cult trying desperately to gain that power back. Nothing more.

Greed, power, corruption, etc. the things itch claims to be opposed to now suddenly a ardent supporter. The hypocrisy a bit too rich. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

According to itch, the court was fine until recently when conservatives gained an advantage. Prior to that there were no ethics issue whatsoever. Yawn.

What you are seeing now is a power hungry cult trying desperately to gain that power back. Nothing more.

Greed, power, corruption, etc. the things itch claims to be opposed to now suddenly a ardent supporter. The hypocrisy a bit too rich. 

 

 

So you're saying that the Supreme Court cant be held to certain ethical standards now or moving forward because it's had ethical problems in the past and weren't punished for them? 

That's a very weird, counter productive viewpoint. 

 

 

I don't think the Supreme Court needs to be "controlled" by congress or the President. Judicial independence is still very important, but at a minimum I believe the Supreme court justices need to be held to similar ethical standards that most other federal judges are held to. The Supreme Court justices are the only federal judges in the nation not bound by a  code of conduct . The supreme Court sets its own rules, polices itself and punishes itself if it determines it does something wrong. That's ripe for corruption and shady dealings. 

 Any American citizen who cares about a functioning Democracy should be for standard ethical oversight of all forms and branches of government. 

 

 

 

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

So you're saying that the Supreme Court cant be held to certain ethical standards now or moving forward because it's had ethical problems in the past and weren't punished for them? 

That's a very weird, counter productive viewpoint. 

 

 

I don't think the Supreme Court needs to be "controlled" by congress or the President. Judicial independence is still very important, but at a minimum I believe the Supreme court justices need to be held to similar ethical standards that most other federal judges are held to. The Supreme Court justices are the only federal judges in the nation not bound by a  code of conduct . The supreme Court sets its own rules, polices itself and punishes itself if it determines it does something wrong. That's ripe for corruption and shady dealings. 

 Any American citizen who cares about a functioning Democracy should be for standard ethical oversight of all forms and branches of government. 

 

 

 

Good grief. Strain at gnats if you choose. Ethics my ***. Go ahead and list recent ethical misconduct.

This hasn't been nor is it now an ethics problem. It is an attempted power grab by a power cult. Not complicated.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Good grief. Strain at gnats if you choose. Ethics my ***. Go ahead and list recent ethical misconduct.

This hasn't been nor is it now an ethics problem. It is an attempted power grab by a power cult. Not complicated.

The fact that you think standard ethical oversight that all other judges are subject to would specifically harm or restrict the Conservative Supreme court Justices more than it would the others is very interesting...and telling  

 

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CoffeeTiger said:

The fact that you think standard ethical oversight that all other judges are subject to would specifically harm or restrict the Conservative Supreme court Justices more than it would the others is very interesting...and telling  

 

Ethical standards of conduct are inherent to the job. No exceptions.

Again, show me a list of ethical violations in this court. I'm waiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Ethical standards of conduct are inherent to the job. No exceptions.

Again, show me a list of ethical violations in this court. I'm waiting.

Point to where I accused the current court of ethical wrongdoing?

In my very first post in this thread I even said "It will increase confidence in the court and have no influence on this current court if they aren't doing anything unethical" a post you "facepalmed" for some reason. 

 

I've simply been stating that I support larger transparency and standard ethical conduct guidelines for our Supreme court. you're the one getting your feathers ruffled, but wont give any reasons why you're against it other than you're paranoid that the "liberals" are doing it to hurt the Conservative Justices. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still waiting Coffee, name someone who is more ethical and can oversee the supreme court justices ethics. You are an all time champion of inability to discern correct meanings from simple statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Point to where I accused the current court of ethical wrongdoing?

In my very first post in this thread I even said "It will increase confidence in the court and have no influence on this current court if they aren't doing anything unethical" a post you "facepalmed" for some reason. 

 

I've simply been stating that I support larger transparency and standard ethical conduct guidelines for our Supreme court. you're the one getting your feathers ruffled, but wont give any reasons why you're against it other than you're paranoid that the "liberals" are doing it to hurt the Conservative Justices. 

You are trying to restate my argument and failing. I simply stated this is much to do about nothing. Just a power grab by a partisan power hungry cult.

Add your argument that we suddenly need ethical oversight is lame. All these years of no ethical violations and the fact that you cannot provide one example, much less the requested list, proves the point. No changes are needed much less warranted. 

If you want to change something prove its necessity. Show what happened and why this is necessary.

But yes, I'm still waiting on the list proving the necessity of this radical  change. Take your time.

Edited by AUFAN78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

According to itch, the court was fine until recently when conservatives gained an advantage. Prior to that there were no ethics issue whatsoever. Yawn.

What you are seeing now is a power hungry cult trying desperately to gain that power back. Nothing more.

Greed, power, corruption, etc. the things itch claims to be opposed to now suddenly a ardent supporter. The hypocrisy a bit too rich. 

 

Stop lying.  He didn’t say that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2023 at 12:51 PM, AUFAN78 said:

Ethical standards of conduct are inherent to the job. No exceptions.

Again, show me a list of ethical violations in this court. I'm waiting.

Thomas refusing to recuse himself from hearings his wife, who was actively involved with politically in supporting Trump's big lie. 

Edited by homersapien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

Thomas refusing to recuse himself from hearings his wife was involved with politically. 

Similarly Kagen failing to recuse herself from the ACA case as she was the architect of the defense of the ACA for Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

Similarly Kagen failing to recuse herself from the ACA case as she was the architect of the defense of the ACA for Obama.

Aren't you proving Coffees point with this comment?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

No. Letting Homer know his research was incomplete.

So if we're acknowledging multiple failures of ethical conduct in the Supreme Court from both conservatives and liberal judges now and in the past, why are you and @AUFAN78 opposed to ethical reform?  

 

The Supreme Court obviously doesn't do a good job of keeping it's own justices from hearing cases they have direct involvement in...so why are you comfortable allowing that to continue? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

So if we're acknowledging multiple failures of ethical conduct in the Supreme Court from both conservatives and liberal judges now and in the past, why are you and @AUFAN78 opposed to ethical reform?  

 

The Supreme Court obviously doesn't do a good job of keeping it's own justices from hearing cases they have direct involvement in...so why are you comfortable allowing that to continue? 

My original question was “who are you going to get to accomplish this”?

The left is partisan and socialistic. 
The right is bats*#t crazy.

No one has attempted to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...