Hillary Clinton wants Supreme Court ethics

[Moonglow]

Not necessarily. Aside from Shrillary’s glaring hypocrisy, the notion has some surface level appeal. But yet again the devil would be in the details.

Who decides what constitutes an ethical violation? On what basis? Then how do they determine when it’s supposedly been violated? And if some “official [?]” decides that a Justice has violated an ethical rule, what would be the penalty? How is an appeal taken? To which judicial body would it go? Wouldn’t the other Justices theoretically then be the ones to make the final call? Or would we get more politically motivated Congressional impeachment shitshows to get the Justice off the bench?

With rules of conduct.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Evidently, you are hostile to the idea.

Hostile to the idea of a Hillary Clinton? You betcha!!

 

[BackAgain]

With rules of conduct.

A classic non answer from the brainless chump, Goonblow.

 

[Moonglow]

A classic non answer from the brainless chump, Goonblow.

I see, instead you'd rather ***** and moan about who made the suggestion.

 

[easyt65]

Hypocritical *****. What does SHE know about “ethics?”

I think she read something about it on an official complaint involving her as Sect of State.

 

[Moonglow]

Hostile to the idea of a Hillary Clinton? You betcha!!

That is not the subject, the subject is rules for the Supreme Court judges.

 

[Moonglow]

There is a reason there is no conflict resolution at USMB.

 

[SaxonJackson]

That is not the subject, the subject is rules for the Supreme Court judges.

Hillary “The Whore” Clinton is ALSO the subject.

Nevertheless … read “Trance Formation of America” by Cathy O'Brien, and you'll know what I'm talking about. She's an evil wench in real time.

 

[BackAgain]

I see, instead you'd rather ***** and moan about who made the suggestion.

Hey, you simpleton. You didn’t answer. You’re retarded. Gfy.

You’re like gnat. A little annoying buzz, but zero substance, ever.

 

[Moonglow]

Hillary “The Whore” Clinton is ALSO the subject.

I could never think of Hillary as a whore since she makes me sick seeing her.

 

[Moonglow]

Hey, you simpleton. You didn’t answer. You’re retarded. Gfy.

You’re like gnat. A little annoying buzz, but zero substance, ever.

Yep, ***** and moan, and stop Daving.

 

[SaxonJackson]

I could never think of Hillary as a whore since she makes me sick seeing her.

Now THAT we can agree on 100%

 

[Esdraelon]

I would personally like to see every federal politician fitted with a shock collar that shocks the shit out of them every time they lie...not enough to seriously hurt them but strong enough to make them jump / yelp.

If Hillary had been fitted with one early on even a mild charge would have killed her by now from constantly shocking her non-stop, 24/7.

They'd have developed a twitch just thinking about that

 

[BackAgain]

Yep, ***** and moan, and stop Daving.

Yeah. Have nothing of merit to say, get called on it then whine and moan and groan like a *****. Type casting.

You can’t even admit that you didn’t answer. Face it. You’re a dishonest little *****. We all see it.

 

[Concerned American]

What that ***** knows about ethics would fit in a thimble

On the point of a very sharp pin.

 

[Moonglow]

Yep, the Supreme Court Justices should have rules just like the ones they edict on the land.

 

[pknopp]

Not necessarily. Aside from Shrillary’s glaring hypocrisy, the notion has some surface level appeal. But yet again the devil would be in the details.

Who decides what constitutes an ethical violation? On what basis? Then how do they determine when it’s supposedly been violated? And if some “official [?]” decides that a Justice has violated an ethical rule, what would be the penalty? How is an appeal taken? To which judicial body would it go? Wouldn’t the other Justices theoretically then be the ones to make the final call? Or would we get more politically motivated Congressional impeachment shitshows to get the Justice off the bench?

We have discussed this over and over. Roberts would create the rules. The justices would have to approve them.

While I don't think many questions concerning future rulings are right, this would be a great one.

Do you or would you support the court having ethic rules over them?

 

[Concerned American]

Not necessarily. Aside from Shrillary’s glaring hypocrisy, the notion has some surface level appeal. But yet again the devil would be in the details.

Who decides what constitutes an ethical violation? On what basis? Then how do they determine when it’s supposedly been violated? And if some “official [?]” decides that a Justice has violated an ethical rule, what would be the penalty? How is an appeal taken? To which judicial body would it go? Wouldn’t the other Justices theoretically then be the ones to make the final call? Or would we get more politically motivated Congressional impeachment shitshows to get the Justice off the bench?

The congress ALREADY has the power to impeach any SCOTUS justice. Hilarity is just sucking more wind.

 

[Concerned American]

We have discussed this over and over. Roberts would create the rules. The justices would have to approve them.

While I don't think many questions concerning future rulings are right, this would be a great one.

Do you or would you support the court having ethic rules over them?

They already do have rules, moron. The congress has the power to impeach justices.

 

[BackAgain]

We have discussed this over and over. Roberts would create the rules. The justices would have to approve them.

While I don't think many questions concerning future rulings are right, this would be a great one.

Do you or would you support the court having ethic rules over them?

I believe I already answered your final question. And I think your simplistic answer about who drafts the rules and how the entire bench would then affirm them leaves unanswered every other question. And that is a big problem. A whole bunch of them.