Justice Scalia & Justice Thomas

[JakeStarkey]

This must be some of that judicial activism the right was talking about.

You mean like appointing and confirming a Supreme Court Justice that openly admits Latino Women are smarter then men? That belongs to an openly anti American racist group? You mean like that?

We are talking about Scalia and Thomas, and your red herring does not change that.

 

[sangha]

Samuel Chase was impeached by the House of Representatives as a member of the USSC, but not convicted by the Senate.

Chase was accused of allowing his political beliefs to affect his decisions. He was acquitted because the Senate believed that judges should allow their beliefs to affect their decisions.

SO basically, he was accused of having a conflict of interest, demonstrating that congress CAN and does hold SCOTUS to a code of conduct. He was acquitted because the Senate decided that political beliefs are not in conflict with his responsibility to be a fair and impartial justice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Juxtapose this steaming heap of a thread with the dearth of comment from the usual Fabian/progressive bedwetter suspects, about Immelt getting a cush position with the administration and GE getting big time exemptions from EPA regs.

Y'know.....It's all about "asking questions".

You don't have a clue about any of this, do you?

 

[sangha]

Juxtapose this steaming heap of a thread with the dearth of comment from the usual Fabian/progressive bedwetter suspects, about Immelt getting a cush position with the administration and GE getting big time exemptions from EPA regs.

Y'know.....It's all about "asking questions".

You don't have a clue about any of this, do you?

That was a rhetorical question, right?

 

[Sallow]

Because you disagree with them. When you start calling for the resignation of judges you agree with because they make decisions primarily on the basis of political ideology you will gain some credibility, but you will still be wrong.

Credibility with who, you?

Credibility with you and my annual bonus is enough to get me round trip air fare to Bankok..a week at it's fanciest hotel and all the hookers I can cram into one bed with expensive hooch included.

Except without the bonus part I couldn't get squat.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, it's not my fault that your thinking is so bizarre that it's misunderstood. How could anyone have guessed that your wacky claim of "assumption" referred to the need for a higher authority combined with the completely nutso idea that Congress is not the higher authority with the power to remove a SC justice. If you're going to accuse others of something (like making an assumption) without spelling it out (or backing it up), then don't be surprised when you're treated like the ass that you are

The SC *IS* subject to a Code of Conduct, and Congress has the power to enforce it.

No they do not.

If you ever bother to read the Constitution you will see that the government is split into three separate and equal branches. The Executive Branch cannot tell Congress what rules it has to follow, nor can Congress tell the Executive Branch who to appoint to run the various agencies. No branch can make rules for the other branches, if they could we would not have a balance of powers.

Keep trying, I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong.

The Constitution, if you ever bother yourself to read it, gives Congress the power to impeach SC justices, a power it has actually exercised.

Tell me again how there's no "higher authority" that can subject a SC justice to a code of conduct.

You might want to read that again. They can only impeach a justice if he breaks an actual law, not if he just makes a ruling no one likes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let's examine QW's 'reasoning'.

"If you ever bother to read the Constitution you will see that the government is split into three separate and equal branches. The Executive Branch cannot tell Congress what rules it has to follow, nor can Congress tell the Executive Branch who to appoint to run the various agencies. No branch can make rules for the other branches, if they could we would not have a balance of powers."

First and foremost the Code of Conduct was formulated by the Judicial Counsel:

Codes of Conduct

The first paragraph reads:

"Federal judges abide by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, a set of ethical principles and guidelines adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Code of Conduct provides guidance for judges on issues of judicial integrity and independence, judicial diligence and impartiality, permissible extra-judicial activities, and the avoidance of impropriety or even its appearance."

Off topic but relevent is that the US Constitution gives the authority to impeach the POTUS to the House of Representatives and the authority to judge the indictment for impeachment to the Senate.

You really should keep reading.

This code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges.Certain provisions of this code aplly to special masters and commissioners as indicated in the "Compliance" section. The Tax Court, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have adopted this Code.

Supreme Court Justices are not federal judges.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well I did find this;
"The [US Supreme Court] Justices are not bound by the Code of Conduct [for United States Judges], but they look to it for guidance."

Spokesperson for the US Supreme Court Public Information Office in an email to ProCon.org, June 15, 2008

US Congressional Ethics Rules on Insider Trading - Insider Trading by Congress - ProCon.org

So based on this find, I was wrong, The supremes are not bound by the code but use it for guidance. QW is right.

No he is not. See Samuel Chase for an example of the only USSC Justice impeached by the House of Representaives; he was not convicted by the Senate.

Impeachment is the equivelant of an indictment. That means he was charged criminally, and found not guilty. That was not the result of him violating a code of conduct, that was simply partisan politics at its worst.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Samuel Chase was impeached by the House of Representatives as a member of the USSC, but not convicted by the Senate.

Chase was accused of allowing his political beliefs to affect his decisions. He was acquitted because the Senate believed that judges should allow their beliefs to affect their decisions.

SO basically, he was accused of having a conflict of interest, demonstrating that congress CAN and does hold SCOTUS to a code of conduct. He was acquitted because the Senate decided that political beliefs are not in conflict with his responsibility to be a fair and impartial justice.

Wrong. But feel free to interpret it that way if you want.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because you disagree with them. When you start calling for the resignation of judges you agree with because they make decisions primarily on the basis of political ideology you will gain some credibility, but you will still be wrong.

Credibility with who, you?

Credibility with you and my annual bonus is enough to get me round trip air fare to Bankok..a week at it's fanciest hotel and all the hookers I can cram into one bed with expensive hooch included.

Except without the bonus part I couldn't get squat.

I believe that. On the other hand, I often get trips based on nothing but my credibility, which proves it can be worth something if you have it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope, what we have a judge driven by ideology and very much like Scalia and Alito. They all have some very odd and imperial view what the Constitution says..and they should not be sitting on the bench. Roberts, I'd keep around..I don't agree with him..but at least he comes to the table with some depth. Unlike the other rubes.

In other words, even when they agree with you they are wrong.

Amazing.

No. In plain, clear text words..they should not be on the bench.

Beceause they are ideologues... or because they are ideologues you don't agree with?

 

[bodecea]

This must be some of that judicial activism the right was talking about.

You mean like appointing and confirming a Supreme Court Justice that openly admits Latino Women are smarter then men? That belongs to an openly anti American racist group? You mean like that?

I think she said that Latino women were smarter than some men....does it upset you when you are proving her right?

 

[logical4u]

Last night I heard on the radio that Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas attended the private strategy meeting hosted by the Kock brothers in Palm Springs. The NYT's reported:

"Koch Industries, the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes from the Cato Institute in Washington to the ballot initiative that would suspend California’s landmark law capping greenhouse gases, is planning a confidential meeting at the Rancho Las Palmas Resort and Spa to, as an invitation says, “develop strategies to counter the most severe threats facing our free society and outline a vision of how we can foster a renewal of American free enterprise and prosperity.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20koch.html

Two questions:
Is the participation of two members of the USSC at a solely political secret meeting appropriate?
Plutocracy anyone?

The Supreme Court overstepping It's Constitutional Authority by Abusing Judicial Review, contributes to Oligarchy/Plutocracy.

The Justices attending a Meeting by it self does not.

The Supreme Court overstepping It's Constitutional Authority by Abusing Judicial Review, contributes to Oligarchy/Plutocracy is an Interesting point. Did the Justices cross the line in Citizens United v. FEC? The nexus between the Kock Brothers wealth and unlimited ability to influence elections should give pause to every thinking American.

It is only okay if the lefties do it. There are standards: one for the left and a totally different one for the right.