The attempt to Usurp the supreme Court will fail.

[Cellblock2429]

the same rules apply to everyone.

/—-/ Not sure what your point is. Lame Duck Joe is responsible for the first one, and the Legislative Branch has no authority over the Judicial Branch.
Please clarify.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

/—-/ Not sure what your point is. Lame Duck Joe is responsible for the first one, and the Legislative Branch has no authority over the Judicial Branch.
Please clarify.

Do you believe that SCOTUS should have a code of conduct or rules they have to follow?

 

[dudmuck]

/—-/ Not sure what your point is. Lame Duck Joe is responsible for the first one, and the Legislative Branch has no authority over the Judicial Branch.
Please clarify.

a constitutional amendment has authority over supreme court. But such action requires 3/4ths of the states to approve it, which today is considered virtually impossible.

separately, congress has the power to enact a supreme court ethics code, which can be done using an ordinary statue.

 

[Cellblock2429]

the same rules apply to everyone.

/—-/ Not sure what your point is. Lame Duck Joe is responsible for the first one, and the Legislative Branch has no authority over the Judicial Branch.
Please clarify.

a constitutional amendment has authority over supreme court. But such action requires 3/4ths of the states to approve it, which today is considered virtually impossible.

separately, congress has the power to enact a supreme court ethics code, which can be done using an ordinary statue.

/——/ And the USSC can rule that Ethic code unconstitutional, DERP.
You guys are grasping at straws again.

 

[dudmuck]

/—-/ Not sure what your point is. Lame Duck Joe is responsible for the first one, and the Legislative Branch has no authority over the Judicial Branch.
Please clarify.

/——/ And the USSC can rule that Ethic code unconstitutional, DERP.
You guys are grasping at straws again.

read what i said --> a constitutional amendment has authority over supreme court. But such action requires 3/4ths of the states to approve it, which today is considered virtually impossible. I'm not very fond of repeating myself.

on an ethics code from congress --> the supreme court would only need to ignore it, if they didnt want to abide by it, but then it would make their corruption obvious to eveyone.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then prosecute him. If you can't then there was no corruption, duh.

Well that's obviously very dumb. Just because we don't yet have good laws against it does not mean it was not corruption. Corruption is a matter of ethics, not legality.

 

[Flopper]

The Supreme Court is already a joke. It needs changing, not in the way the dems or reps want though.

Justices need approval from BOTH PARTIES>

We are far to divided to get approval of both parties. The worst possible way to select judges is by elections. Rarely due voters have enough understanding of the judicial system to select judges. Politicians are only slightly better. They general have an understanding of the system but their criteria for selection will be based on political favortism. I believe the method of selection should begin with a panel of existing judges creating a qualification list. Next, the president makes a recommendation from the list and that goes to a bi-partisan congressional committee to make the final selection.

Since removing a federal judge for incompetency or blatant favoritism is as difficult as removing a president, all federal judges including SCOTUS should have term limits . It is the best way to create a fairer court system.

 

[Cellblock2429]

read what i said --> a constitutional amendment has authority over supreme court. But such action requires 3/4ths of the states to approve it, which today is considered virtually impossible. I'm not very fond of repeating myself.

on an ethics code from congress --> the supreme court would only need to ignore it, if they didnt want to abide by it, but then it would make their corruption obvious to eveyone.

/---/ I read what you wrote about amending the constitution and agree with you 100%. I should have made that clear.
All I said is that the USSC can simply declare the ethics code unconstitutional.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

Biden is a FOOL just like Kamala. I hope they both go down in flames.

 

[kyzr]

Well that's obviously very dumb. Just because we don't yet have good laws against it does not mean it was not corruption. Corruption is a matter of ethics, not legality.

Ethics violations are not necessarily corruption or crimes. Just ask the governor of VA. Justices routinely get gifts, ask RBG

 

[Flopper]

/---/ I read what you wrote about amending the constitution and agree with you 100%. I should have made that clear.
All I said is that the USSC can simply declare the ethics code unconstitutional.

Maybe so. A big problem with the Constitution is that the writers never took into account political parties. They feared and hated pollical factions. Apparently they felt if they just ignored them they would stay away.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We are far to divided to get approval of both parties. The worst possible way to select judges is by elections. Rarely due voters have enough understanding of the judicial system to select judges. Politicians are only slightly better. They general have an understanding of the system but their criteria for selection will be based on political favortism. I believe the method of selection should begin with a panel of existing judges creating a qualification list. Next, the president makes a recommendation from the list and that goes to a bi-partisan congressional committee to make the final selection.

Since removing a federal judge for incompetency or blatant favoritism is as difficult as removing a president, all federal judges including SCOTUS should have term limits . It is the best way to create a fairer court system.

But then if this were the system, they'd have to figure out a way, because justices are required.

Term limits are like a band aid for cancer.

 

[Cellblock2429]

But then if this were the system, they'd have to figure out a way, because justices are required.

Term limits are like a band aid for cancer.

/——/ I can stop laughing as Lame Duck Joe fumbles around.
White House website praises lifetime Supreme Court appointments as Biden pushes term limits
White House website praises lifetime Supreme Court appointments as Biden pushes term limits

 

[Flopper]

But then if this were the system, they'd have to figure out a way, because justices are required.

Term limits are like a band aid for cancer.

There is no really good way to select judges. Term Limits insure that the really bad ones won't be there for life. It also creates a system where it becomes very difficult for one party to control the justice system for very long.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ethics violations are not necessarily corruption or crimes.

This is you making an elementary error in logic called "the inverse error".

 

[kyzr]

This is you making an elementary error in logic called "the inverse error".

Democrats are making an "inverse error" thinking they can impose their rules on the USSC.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Democrats are making an "inverse error" thinking they can impose their rules on the USSC.

That doesn't name any sense on any level. Sorry. You shouldn't use terms you don't understand.

 

[kyzr]

That doesn't name any sense on any level. Sorry. You shouldn't use terms you don't understand.

The USSC is not subservient to Congress.

Denying the antecedent - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Marener]

The USSC is not subservient to Congress

Don’t they have the power to impeach them?

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is no really good way to select judges. Term Limits insure that the really bad ones won't be there for life. It also creates a system where it becomes very difficult for one party to control the justice system for very long.

Well, if you have bad judges because of a bad way of putting them in their position, one will go and the next one will still be bad.