Joe Biden wants to apply ethics codes to the SC that ethic codes would throw him out of office

[rightwinger]

Why would I care what George Soros gave his friends? even if they were judges.

They are allowed to have friends, and friends are allowed to give one another gifts.

What I am more concerned about is when Judges stay on cases where they have conflicts...liek when Justice Sodtomayor set on cases involving her book publisher that gave her 100s of thousands of dollars

I understand Clarence Thomas is such a charming guy and people want to be his friends.
I have lots of friends but they don’t shower me with gifts. I would feel awkward if they did. Does Thomas give expensive gifts to his friends? He is a multimillionaire

Accepting gifts like $150,000 RVs, Tuition, someone buying your mother’s home creates the appearance of impropriety.
A Supreme Court judges reputation for impartiality is jeopardized

 

[struth]

I understand Clarence Thomas is such a charming guy and people want to be his friends.
I have lots of friends but they don’t shower me with gifts. I would feel awkward if they did. Does Thomas give expensive gifts to his friends? He is a multimillionaire

Accepting gifts like $150,000 RVs, Tuition, someone buying your mother’s home creates the appearance of impropriety.
A Supreme Court judges reputation for impartiality is jeopardized

why? the friend doesn't have cases before him....unlike the Justice I mentioned, who had a case in front of her with the company that was paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If Thomas didn't recuse himself from his good friend's cases, that might be an issue

And what about the gifts to Joey Xiden? It's not a real surprise to see you all attacking the Court, and the only black man on the court...

Joey Xiden gets free vacations from friends....https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/biden-omits-free-vacations-from-ethics-forms-despite-clarence-thomas-outcry/

Biden again omits free vacations at million dollar homes from ethics forms despite Clarence Thomas outcry​

it doesn't end there....donors pay off his son's back taxes: Hollywood lawyer paid off over $2M of Hunter Biden’s delinquent taxes

 

[rightwinger]

why? the friend doesn't have cases before him....unlike the Justice I mentioned, who had a case in front of her with the company that was paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If Thomas didn't recuse himself from his good friend's cases, that might be an issue

These are major Republican donors. They have a political agenda.
Thomas should not be accepting gifts from them PERIOD

Why not enforce a $50 gift limit on members of the Court?

 

[struth]

These are major Republican donors. They have a political agenda.
Thomas should not be accepting gifts from them PERIOD

Everyone has an "agenda" - why shouldn't he accept gifts from his friends?

Why can the Xiden family get gifts?

 

[JohnDB]

have you read the changes he wants to make . whadda hypocrit. This guy couldnt cut the mustard on any of these standards. No one had caused more breach than this moron.
wait till he pardons his son, cuz it's coming. Put that in your ethics code dip####

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2024-07-29/biden-unveils-plan-for-supreme-court-changes-says-us-stands-at-breach-as-public-confidence-sinks

It stands zero chance.

This is a nothing burger of a story except to try to "rally" supporters.

Because changing the Constitution is one of the dumbest ideas that have come up.

This nation has survived because of the Constitution.....longest lived government in world history. Changing it would destroy it and its citizens right along side of it.

Just because Joe doesn't like it doesn't matter. It's NOT HIS NATION. The USA belongs to its people...not its Government.

SCOTUS, unlike Congress, doesn't shirk its responsibilities. It puts out its decisions in public format. Let's people hear the arguments and questions and know the circumstances surrounding the issues.

Lifetime appointments is a necessity....no influence peddling, no bartering, no politicking is allowed.

These Justices are subject to impeachment....and if Congress wasn't reticent to do the bare minimum outside of insider trading on Wall Street....then maybe they could actually do something.

 

[pknopp]

He was not “judged unable to be prosecuted”. That’s simply a lie.

Show me where Obama authorized the attack.

He was ultimately responsible for it. Could he have been prosecuted over it? I dunno but there were plenty of other things he should have been prosecuted over.

Unconstitutionally spying on Americans and then sending a representative to perjure himself before Congress is a big one.

Sadly that wouldn't be illegal today thanks to the Supreme Court.

 

[pknopp]

It stands zero chance.

This is a nothing burger of a story except to try to "rally" supporters.

Because changing the Constitution is one of the dumbest ideas that have come up.

This nation has survived because of the Constitution.....longest lived government in world history. Changing it would destroy it and its citizens right along side of it.

Just because Joe doesn't like it doesn't matter. It's NOT HIS NATION. The USA belongs to its people...not its Government.

SCOTUS, unlike Congress, doesn't shirk its responsibilities. It puts out its decisions in public format. Let's people hear the arguments and questions and know the circumstances surrounding the issues.

Lifetime appointments is a necessity....no influence peddling, no bartering, no politicking is allowed.

These Justices are subject to impeachment....and if Congress wasn't reticent to do the bare minimum outside of insider trading on Wall Street....then maybe they could actually do something.

It is the Supreme Court that changed it by finding something in the Constitution that does not exist.

Nowhere will you find that any president is above our laws while carrying out the job of a president.

As I noted above, call spying on American's as carrying out the duties of president and you are scot free. That means the protections are out the window.

 

[blackhawk]

First the only reason the left wants this is because the court make is six conservative justices and three liberal they would have no issue with the way the court is if it was the other way.Now one thing Biden wants is for Congress to pass term limits for justices I will support this if Congress puts in that same legislation term limits for themselves House and Senate no exceptions. We have term limits for the President they want them for Supreme Court justices no reason not to have them for Congress as well.

 

[tyroneweaver]

It stands zero chance.

This is a nothing burger of a story except to try to "rally" supporters.

Because changing the Constitution is one of the dumbest ideas that have come up.

This nation has survived because of the Constitution.....longest lived government in world history. Changing it would destroy it and its citizens right along side of it.

Just because Joe doesn't like it doesn't matter. It's NOT HIS NATION. The USA belongs to its people...not its Government.
well
SCOTUS, unlike Congress, doesn't shirk its responsibilities. It puts out its decisions in public format. Let's people hear the arguments and questions and know the circumstances surrounding the issues.

Lifetime appointments is a necessity....no influence peddling, no bartering, no politicking is allowed.

These Justices are subject to impeachment....and if Congress wasn't reticent to do the bare minimum outside of insider trading on Wall Street....then maybe they could actually do something.

well we are a news driven forum b/c if you don't post a link a few on here including moderators have a inky fit.
I would love to post my own thoughts on stuff... but that ain't a link

 

[JohnDB]

It is the Supreme Court that changed it by finding something in the Constitution that does not exist.

Nowhere will you find that any president is above our laws while carrying out the job of a president.

As I noted above, call spying on American's as carrying out the duties of president and you are scot free. That means the protections are out the window.

No....
It didn't find anything. The Supreme Court is full of what is deemed as "Originalists" meaning that they take the view that it had meanings in its original language that does not need to be modified (unless it is) that must be adhered to.

Such as "Congress shall make no law" but that includes any regulatory agency doing the same thing by regulation. Meaning that the ATF cannot make a regulation (in essence a law concerning anything that Congress cannot legislate either)

Barret went through this quite extensively in her trial by Congress before her appointment.

Currently SCOTUS is controlled by "Originalists". And they do not take orders by schmuck Presidents.. it's not what the Constitutional Framers had in mind....and it's served us well for 250 years now.

Presidents are the Executive Branch of government. Congress the Legislative and the Judicial is SCOTUS.

Each branch(outside of congress) is subject to impeachment.

If a Justice behaves outside of an expected fashion (due to bribes or threats) then they can be impeached. A sitting President is currently trying to threaten them.
Which is grounds for impeachment in itself.

 

[pknopp]

No....
It didn't find anything. The Supreme Court is full of what is deemed as "Originalists" meaning that they take the view that it had meanings in its original language that does not need to be modified (unless it is) that must be adhered to.

Such as "Congress shall make no law" but that includes any regulatory agency doing the same thing by regulation. Meaning that the ATF cannot make a regulation (in essence a law concerning anything that Congress cannot legislate either)

Barret went through this quite extensively in her trial by Congress before her appointment.

Currently SCOTUS is controlled by "Originalists". And they do not take orders by schmuck Presidents.. it's not what the Constitutional Framers had in mind....and it's served us well for 250 years now.

Presidents are the Executive Branch of government. Congress the Legislative and the Judicial is SCOTUS.

Each branch(outside of congress) is subject to impeachment.

If a Justice behaves outside of an expected fashion (due to bribes or threats) then they can be impeached. A sitting President is currently trying to threaten them.
Which is grounds for impeachment in itself.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants immunity of anyone from our laws.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants immunity of anyone from our laws.

This is why the term 'originalists' being used to describe the current court is laughable.

Had they been originalists, the immunity ruling would have been flatly impossible.

 

[JohnDB]

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants immunity of anyone from our laws.

No one is immune from laws....never once said that or implied that.

But what is secret and from whom is very much under the purview of the President....
He is a branch of government. With duties spelled out in the constitution.

 

[pknopp]

No one is immune from laws....never once said that or implied that.

Presidential immunity extends to some official acts, Supreme Court rules in Trump case • Washington State Standard

 

[FA_Q2]

No one is immune from laws....never once said that or implied that.

But what is secret and from whom is very much under the purview of the President....
He is a branch of government. With duties spelled out in the constitution.

LOL.

Immunity is the exact wording given.

And that immunity is vast in its application. Any and all communication with any of the agencies under the executive branch is covered. Literally, there is nothing a president can order the FBI, DOJ or military to do that would be illegal as the court specifically said you cannot investigate those commands, discover what those commands are or even question the intent of those commands.

There is no way to read that except as above the law.

 

[JohnDB]

Presidential immunity extends to some official acts, Supreme Court rules in Trump case • Washington State Standard

the 6-3 opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the president is subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts, “like everyone else.”

“But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties,” Roberts wrote. “Accounting for that reality—and ensuring that the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would—does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution.”

From the Article....

Meaning that the President cannot be charged.

Besides....more than enough lawfare has been directed at Trump.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The courts are always the first thing fascist tyrants go after.

Guns...the 2a was designed as a red flag warning to highlight and illuminate who they are and where the tyrants are coming from.

 

[pknopp]

the 6-3 opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the president is subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts, “like everyone else.”

As noted practically anything the president does as president is an official act.

Prove it isn't. You can't. No one around you can testify against you.

“But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties,” Roberts wrote. “Accounting for that reality—and ensuring that the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would—does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution.”

From the Article....

Meaning that the President cannot be charged.

Besides....more than enough lawfare has been directed at Trump.

This is NOT about Trump. Sadly that's all so many can see. This applies to all president here on forward.

 

[FA_Q2]

the 6-3 opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the president is subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts, “like everyone else.”

“But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties,” Roberts wrote. “Accounting for that reality—and ensuring that the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would—does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution.”

From the Article....

Meaning that the President cannot be charged.

Besides....more than enough lawfare has been directed at Trump.

And what examples of 'unofficial' act did the court point out. They have many, many examples of official acts - like the ones I pointed out. What is an example the court gave that was unofficial?

 

[FA_Q2]

This is NOT about Trump. Sadly that's all so many can see. This applies to all president here on forward.

And, as has been the case in the past, future presidents will always use current changes in power in worse ways then now. The PA is such a good example of this.