• Sparlock@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Is that a textualist or originalist interpretation of the constitution?

        In other words…

        Are the Supreme Priests going to go by the strict definition of the words or the way they feel the founding fathers intended the words? Ahh who am I kidding?? They are just playing…

        "Who’s line is it anyway?: Supreme Edition

        The court where everything’s made up and the constitution don’t matter"

    • Ghostc1212
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Congress is legally allowed to impeach any SCOTUS justice they want.

        • Ghostc1212
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Blame Congress for that. It’s their fault for never actually using their abilities.

    • los_chill@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      What are the consequences if state or federal government decided not to follow a Supreme Court ruling? It’s up to the Attorney General to enforce the laws of the Justice Department and that position is a presidential appointee.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Congress can also impose a mandate on the executive branch if they got out of hand. The issue is SCotUS is clearly out of hand now, yet congress is doing nothing. The whole “checks and balances” system is idealistic and clearly flawed.

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          impose a mandate

          the law for us poors is “do it or men with guns will put you in a box”. what men with guns does congress have to force the president to do what scotus tell him to?

          • los_chill@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I was curious to see if this might play out had Biden invoked the 14th amendment to solve the recent debt-limit standoff. Had he done so, chances are it would have eventually gone to the Supreme Court to ‘rule’ whether they liked that or not. But had they ruled against it and the Biden Treasury Department just… kept paying our debt, what would the Supreme Court be able to do? Throw a fit?

  • mick@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    1 year ago

    Seriously. Why are they getting handouts when they can legally get rich on insider trading, like normal Congress members? (/s in case you think I’m serious)

  • TheCommonMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Correction Democratic Senators call for ethics code, Republican Senators say the branches should not monitor each other.

    • Lodespawn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pretty sure it’s the same in Australia. Our judges are also appointed by their legal peers who are also held to a pretty strict code of ethics. Breaches of these codes can result in being stripped of your right to practice law. These features combined limit this nonsense of partisan judges tthat the US seems to be afflicted with.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      all the other judges have a code of ethic. scotus insists that it has a code of ethics too, but that it has to keep that code secret or people with business before the court will try to abuse that code of ethics in order to force unfavorable justices to recuse themselves. scotus also tells us that taking money, favors and gifts from people who have business before the court does not violate the secret code of ethics that they have. how a code of ethics that doesn’t cover bribery differs from a code of ethics that doesn’t exist at all has been left as an exercise to the reader.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s absolute insanity that members of the highest court in the land don’t have to abide by such pesky rules as “codes of ethics” or even have to worry about the appearance of impropriety. I’m guessing it’s another of those things where the Founding Fathers assumed that selfless politicians, working tirelessly in service of their countrymen, would come together for the good of the nation to impeach SOC judges if there was ever even a hint of something wrong happening.

    Meanwhile, in reality it’s just this BS club of unelected judges that get to basically make their own policy without any oversight. I get that somebody somewhere has to be a deciding factor on how some of these cases play out, but given the weight and responsibility that comes with the position, they really should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us.

    • Phlogiston@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      because when you get right down to it anything they did would be themselves doing it and thus subject to themselves NOT doing it. so the founding documents cut to the chase – impeach the fuckers if they need it.

      (of course, as you hint, they didn’t appropriately plan for party capture)

  • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s so exhausting when ethics are considered a partisan issue and the ones against ethics and oversight will not shut up accusing others of unethical behavior. Also, the ‘ethics codes’ congressmen and senators are supposed to abide by aren’t enforced in anything like a rigorous or consistent way.

    At the very least, congressmen, senators, and justices ought to be held to standards higher than the standards they’re responsible for holding others to. Unfortunately, holding them to those higher standards is a sort of power that would be instantly abused the moment anyone with an agenda and crap ethics has it, another ‘who will watch the watchmen?’ conundrum

    This shit is why we can’t have nice things apparently

    • Sparlock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have an idea.

      When there is a legitimate ethics violation why don’t we get a referee and then get a random group of 12 people to decide if it was worth them being penalized?

      I know i’m just talkin crazy here but…

      TLDR; Clarence Thomas took bribes, the only way it would be more obvious would be if they gave him the money in a bag with $$$ printed on the outside. Throw his corrupt ass in jail.

    • Fonchote@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sad situation, I don’t understand how do many people are OK with it, but they are. The GOP and still obtain a significant victory in the next election. We need to make sure to get out and vote.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    dissolve the court. arrest gorsuch, thomas, alito and kavanaugh. investigate everyone else and if they even so much as took a breath mint from someone who had business before the court, arrest them too. “but what about the liberal justices?” yes, them too. arrest the corrupt. it’s not an extreme position.

  • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Real talk:

    What would be the actual consequences here? Because as far as I can tell, ethics bodies over the other branches are about as worthless as the bioethics division at Umbrella Labs.

    • chaogomu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually, yes.

      As does the federal judiciary. Alito was a federal judge and while serving as such he knew damn well that any gift over about $20 had to be both turned down, and also reported.

      That’s the rules that federal judges live under, the same rules that most of the executive branch lives under.

      Senators and Representatives have looser rules, but they do have them… And Thomas and Alito have been instrumental in loosening those rules.

      Ted Cruz and the conservatives on the court actually made outright bribery legal if the bribed jumps through the right hoops. See FCC v Ted Cruz for more info.

      • fleabomber@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        As a former school bus driver I can assure you that if you don’t have consequences, you don’t have rules.

        • chaogomu@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          For everyone except supreme court justices and sitting senators, there are actual consequences for accepting gifts in excess of $20. And sitting senators used to have consequences as well. Until republicans decided that the rules didn’t apply to them, so they got rid of the rules.

          The aggravating thing is, without rules in place, you cannot punish someone for breaking the rules. Not unless you like mob justice, with is never actually just, and never stops until the bloodlust is fully slaked.

    • Tot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ya but it doesn’t seem there’s a whole lot of punishment for violating them.

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d like to see them held to an actual standard instead of what we let the other two branches get away with.