Leftist Reaction to the new USSC Code of Ethics

[DGS49]

The Supreme Court refuses to get why people hate them

It's not just the useless "code of ethics" — the Dobbs decision revealed the real-life impact of an imperious court

www.salon.com

The linked article was written by a woman in a neurotically Leftist publication, so one would never expect any rational thoughts to come out of it, but...

Isn't it interesting that amidst all the blather, she can't cite a single case where the Supreme Court that she so blissfully excoriates has issued an opinion that is not supported by...well...the CONSTITUTION. She simply states - quite obviously, for those of us who follow such things - that some of their recent decisions go against "history."

And yet when prior decisions are manifestly wrong (e.g., RvW), isn't it a GOOD THING when a decision goes against that history?

And Leftists use the word "corruption" in exactly the same way they use "racist," to mean, "anything we don't like." If you want to claim that someone is CORRUPT, you must show that (a) they accepted something of value to (b) change their position on an important issue, and (c) take official action on the basis of that changed position. (Examples from the Biden Crime Family are plentiful). With all the Leftist complaining about the Supreme Court these days - the vacations, fishing trips and whatnot - they can't come up with a single instance where a Supreme Court decision was decided that benefitted any of the Justice's benefactors in a way that could even be argued is different from those Justice's long-held positions.

So again we are left with the pressing question: Are Leftist's dishonest or stupid? It must be one or the other.

 

[pknopp]

When there is a split decision both sides can not be right. There are cases where Thomas was the lone dissenting opinion. Is the argument here, both sides of the argument were Constitutional?

 

[1srelluc]

The dems were perfectly OK when a decision went their way.

Hell it could even be argued that Dobbs went their way given the repercussions.

 

[theHawk]

When there is a split decision both sides can not be right. There are cases where Thomas was the lone dissenting opinion. Is the argument here, both sides of the argument were Constitutional?

Clarence Thomas is always right.

 

[pknopp]

Clarence Thomas is always right.

So the argument would be the ruling was unconstitutional unlike what the OP argued.

 

[DGS49]

Virtually all major decisions over the past 60 years have been contested within the Court. One faction respects the Constitution as it was written and intended, and the other faction does not. Simple as that. For example, Justices Brennan and Marshall both candidly said that if they could they would simply eliminate the death penalty, despite its being implicitly sanctioned in the text ("...life liberty or property..."). This is renegade talk.

Only one side is correct, and it is always the Conservative side, whether they "win" or "lose" the decision.

 

[cnm]

Are Leftist's dishonest or stupid? It must be one or the other.

Every conservative accusation really is a confession.

 

[rightwinger]

The Supreme Court refuses to get why people hate them

It's not just the useless "code of ethics" — the Dobbs decision revealed the real-life impact of an imperious court

www.salon.com

The linked article was written by a woman in a neurotically Leftist publication, so one would never expect any rational thoughts to come out of it, but...

Isn't it interesting that amidst all the blather, she can't cite a single case where the Supreme Court that she so blissfully excoriates has issued an opinion that is not supported by...well...the CONSTITUTION. She simply states - quite obviously, for those of us who follow such things - that some of their recent decisions go against "history."

And yet when prior decisions are manifestly wrong (e.g., RvW), isn't it a GOOD THING when a decision goes against that history?

And Leftists use the word "corruption" in exactly the same way they use "racist," to mean, "anything we don't like." If you want to claim that someone is CORRUPT, you must show that (a) they accepted something of value to (b) change their position on an important issue, and (c) take official action on the basis of that changed position. (Examples from the Biden Crime Family are plentiful). With all the Leftist complaining about the Supreme Court these days - the vacations, fishing trips and whatnot - they can't come up with a single instance where a Supreme Court decision was decided that benefitted any of the Justice's benefactors in a way that could even be argued is different from those Justice's long-held positions.

So again we are left with the pressing question: Are Leftist's dishonest or stupid? It must be one or the other.

A Justice may be Conservative or may be Liberal but until now they were looked at as impartial interpreters of the law.

If you allow someone to shower you with gifts, free vacations, gives you “loans” that you don’t have to repay…..your impartiality comes into question.

Face it….Judges should know better than to accept “free stuff”

 

[rightwinger]

One faction respects the Constitution as it was written and intended, and the other faction does not.

Why you can’t have honest discussions with Conservatives

 

[Jarlaxle]

Virtually all major decisions over the past 60 years have been contested within the Court. One faction respects the Constitution as it was written and intended, and the other faction does not. Simple as that. For example, Justices Brennan and Marshall both candidly said that if they could they would simply eliminate the death penalty, despite its being implicitly sanctioned in the text ("...life liberty or property..."). This is renegade talk.

Only one side is correct, and it is always the Conservative side, whether they "win" or "lose" the decision.

How many innocent people are you willing to kill to sate your bloodlust?