Hillary Clinton wants Supreme Court ethics

[Moonglow]

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

Not if Congress is just as corrupt.

 

[BackAgain]

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

They don’t impose rules by edict. You’re very uneducated.

 

[pknopp]

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.

Sure there are details but we never get to them as long as they continue to refuse to enact ethic rules over themselves.

 

[Moonglow]

They don’t impose rules by edict. You’re very uneducated.

They must since their word is final.

 

[BackAgain]

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

Yeah I realize that Congress has impeachment authority over SCOTUS Justices.

My question is whether an “ethical” violation of some kind would be enforceable only via an impeachment process? I don’t believe that’s what the Framers had in mind. Nor do I think it would amount to a wise policy for our system of government.

 

[BackAgain]

Sure there are details but we never get to them as long as they continue to refuse to enact ethic rules over themselves.

If a Justice does something that amounts to a high crime or misdemeanor, we already have a remedy in place. And not all questionable acts amount to an ethical lapse consistent with a high crime or misdemeanor.

 

[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?

Again, educate yourself, ignorant fuck.

Rules of Removing a Supreme Court Justice

In most cases, the removal of a Supreme Court judge happens only after retirement or death. But the Constitution provides impeachment as a potential option for removing a Supreme Court justice from the bench. Impeachment is a possibility, but history teaches us that it's also improbable.

legalbeagle.com

 

[BackAgain]

They must since their word is final.

Wrong, you dope.

 

[Concerned American]

Yeah I realize that Congress has impeachment authority over SCOTUS Justices.

My question is whether an “ethical” violation of some kind would be enforceable only via an impeachment process? I don’t believe that’s what the Framers had in mind. Nor do I think it would amount to a wise policy for our system of government.

That is why the impeachment process is the only viable way. All of this other crap is nothing more than a democrat smoke screen to get their way at any cost.

 

[Moonglow]

Wrong, you dope.

True since DC does allow abortions.

 

[BackAgain]

True since DC does allow abortions.

Another sequitur ^ in the futile search of something to follow.

 

[struth]

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

there are rules they use to advice themselves on.

 

[Moonglow]

there are rules they use to advice themselves on.

Hardly....

Is there a code of ethics for Supreme Court justices?


Today, On Point: Nine supreme court justices make decisions about what falls in and out of the bounds of law. But they don't have a code that describes where their own ethical boundaries should be.

Does the Supreme Court need a code of conduct? | On Point - WBUR​

wbur.org
https://www.wbur.org › onpoint › 2023/05/05 › who-sh

 

[Moonglow]

Another sequitur ^ in the futile search of something to follow.

Gonna still claim the supremes have a code of ethical conduct? The answer is-no.

Does the Supreme Court need a code of conduct? | On Point - WBUR​

wbur.org
https://www.wbur.org › onpoint › 2023/05/05 › who-sh

 

[struth]

Hardly....

Is there a code of ethics for Supreme Court justices?


Today, On Point: Nine supreme court justices make decisions about what falls in and out of the bounds of law. But they don't have a code that describes where their own ethical boundaries should be.

Does the Supreme Court need a code of conduct? | On Point - WBUR​

View attachment 782821
wbur.org
https://www.wbur.org › onpoint › 2023/05/05 › who-sh

there are rules they use to advice themselves on.

 

[BackAgain]

Gonna still claim the supremes have a code of ethical conduct? The answer is-no.

Does the Supreme Court need a code of conduct? | On Point - WBUR​

View attachment 782822
wbur.org
https://www.wbur.org › onpoint › 2023/05/05 › who-sh

I don’t recall ever saying they did have one, chump. Nice straw man argument. And yet you still lost.

 

[Moonglow]

I don’t recall ever saying they did have one, chimp. Nice straw man argument. And yet you still lost.

Not a strawman you simply didn't know, no big deal.

 

[pknopp]

Letters to the Editor: 'If we can't trust the judges' ethics, how can they judge ours?'

Readers question whether justices who resist ethical standards — and have shown themselves to need those standards — should be on the Supreme Court.

www.yahoo.com

 

[BackAgain]

Not a strawman you simply didn't know, no big deal.

You asked me if I was still going to deny it. I never claimed it.

You lose again.

You’re amazingly stupid. And fraudulent.

Edit: much like pknopp.

 

[pknopp]

On two occasions, the Supreme Court has declined to take on cases involving publishing conglomerate Penguin Random House.

Both Sotomayor and Gorsuch have reported earning large paychecks from Penguin Random House for publishing books.

Gorsuch failed to recuse himself from one of the cases. Sotomayor didn't recuse herself from both.

2 Supreme Court justices failed to recuse themselves from cases involving their publisher after receiving exorbitant amounts in book advances and royalties

The court is corrupt.