Think about this for a second: a Supreme Court justice thinks NO ONE has the power to hold them to an ethical standard. I can think of no better reason to hold them to an ethical standard than that.
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
124 points (94.3% liked)
News
23424 readers
3722 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah really, if a justice literally says checks and balances don't exist, maybe we should listen and respond accordingly. Also maybe we should fire him, and most of the others.
Exactly. Checks and balances motherfucker! We need to swing the scales back into balance so hard. He and Thomas are launched into orbit and never heard from again. Run over by an orbiting Tesla.
This is genuinely quite a scary belief coming from a SCOTUS justice. In effect he is saying that the SCOTUS is the only institution in the US that is completely untouchable by legislation. That elevates the SCOTUS to a level beyond any other government position. Effectively our benevolent overlords. Given how low of approval ratings that the SCOTUS has, their recent series of ideological activist decisions, and the fact that they aren't even elected positions, I find myself increasingly in support of a fundamental redefinition of the SCOTUS as we know it. I don't see why we shouldn't stack the SCOTUS when they've fundamentally abandoned their duty to any level of fairness or responsibility for the citizens of the US.
Unelected, serve for life, say they are untouchable and can do as they please. How is that not a king?
Any position that is for life is too long, especially an appointed one with almost zero mechanisms for removal.
Almost, impeachment is one big one allowed. I believe only one justice was impeached but I bet the issue is, you can't get republicans to agree as then democrats can put one in. Which is a terrible injustice so they'll make sure to vote down anything to make sure the supreme court stays right winged.
Because Supreme Court cant create their own laws directly, missing legislature power, having no direct power to control national finances/budgets, a main power of a country and they dont have control of the executives including army and police. All their power depends on laws made by legislature and constitution.
Thats how the three pillars of power works in all democracies. Just because your legislature or executives or even forefathers who made the constitution fucked up, doesnt mean the supreme court is an absolute monarchy. The biggest piece of shit mistake you made was having a two party system. In other countries, supreme courts arent as binary partisan. Coalitions of Partys vote way more reasonable judges to supreme courts
Considering the Supreme Court's entire schtick is the arbitrary definition of a word's meaning by the sitting justices... I'd disagree.
They can literally change the definition of a law at a whim. It doesn't really matter at that point what the law even says unless it's lawyered up specifically to remove their powers. Even then, don't expect the conservative justices to go down without a fight lol.
The problem is that they blatantly collude with the other two pillars. They can't make their own laws, but they can collude with the others to bring a case to their doorstep to make a ruling not based on precedent or good faith interpretation of the law.
They effectively can create whatever laws they want, just with extra steps.
George Washington warned against bicameralism, but they ignored him. Our Supreme Court positions have always been non-partisan until recent history.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Alito is wrong. Just like he’s wrong about a lot of other things.
State judiciary: powerless versus their congress.
Federal judiciary: unquestionable.
Get the fuck out of our government, you miserable bastard.
Can we start a prayer drive for this guy to die in his sleep?
Nah, that's too peaceful and hippie. Let's pray for Old Testament God and their unimaginable non-eucludean angels who have thousands of eyes and burning wheels and infinite wings with a baby fetus in the core with the absolute most fucked up horrific natural death possible.
Justice Samuel Alito says Congress lacks the power to impose a code of ethics on the Supreme Court, making him the first member of the court to take a public stand against proposals in Congress to toughen ethics rules for justices in response to increased scrutiny of their activities beyond the bench.
Then who exactly is supposed to be the check on the courts? Is that not precisely the domain of the legislative wing of govt? That's like some basic civics shit.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Sure sure, and by that logic, I also submit that the Supreme Court lacks the power to impose their own ethics on an entire gender.
Expand and term-limit SCOTUS. This system is ridiculous
Instead of term limits, the rule should be to replace the longest serving justice every 4 years. On average, every president will therefore replace one justice each term barring any accidents.
I mean term limits aren't going to fix the problem. They arguably may make them far worse. It then just becomes a job of tactically making sure you secure the election of the executive branch and senate. With senate being the most important since if senate sits on their hands you sort of get a "Scalia situation". Where there will just be an empty seat until you get executive and senate to agree on a candidate.
Surely there is a way to effectively fill vacant government positions.
Yes but no. I'll elaborate, there is a concept called a recess appointment where if senate is on recess (which they do twice a year) where the president can fill in a temp until the end of their next session however National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning (2014) basically has allowed the concept of pro forma session as a valid way to disrupt a recess. So what is a pro forma session it is basically a session of senate where the President Pro Tempore (Longest running senator who handles procedure) delegates their job to a singular senator who then calls the session to an end and repeat this every 3 days and bing bang boom. You have a senate who is not on recess but is taking a break
So in a 5-4 vote, they dictated
“for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.”
So while there is technically a system to fill vacant government positions, it has been basically loopholed out of the equation since 2014.
Term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment.
Laughable with a republican congress.
Well, as I see it, Mr. Alito... You can either have Congress do it, or you can have an angry mob do it. Which do you prefer?
I'll believe it when I see it, Americans are quite pacified.
We're not as rowdy as we need to be, but you're not going to get the full picture from corporate media. They have a vested interest in downplaying or vilifying everything rad we do.
load more comments
(1 replies)
And remember, Alito and Thomas were nominated by the so-called "moderate" Bush family.
If Congress lacks the authority to regulate the Supreme Court, then certainly they also lack the authority to fund the Supreme Court...
Fortunately, congress does have the power to impeach and remove a supreme court judge.
In theory. In practice getting 2/3 of the Senate to agree on anything is pretty much impossible.
load more comments
(3 replies)
It would be, if we elected people who cared more about doing good than they do about increasing their own fortunes.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
— Article I Section 8 Clause 18 US Constitution
The Constitution indicates that Congress gets to set the laws that are necessary for proper execution of all the powers enumerated in the Constitution.
load more comments
(1 replies)
There's a key trick to evaluating statements by the republican justices... re-read anything they say from the lens of they are completely full of shit and have zero integrity.
These are not serious people. Don't discuss them as if they are. Tell your own representatives that they need to act on this LOUDLY or they will lose your vote.
They can certainly add and remove them.
I feel the supreme court is playing a game of fuck around and find out here. Hate to say it but supreme court ethics has pretty bipartisan support. These people are entrusted to be above that kind of behavior, but it's already been shown that every member of the court has something to hide. If they're not willing to self police themselves we will police them ourselves.
load more comments
(7 replies)
IF this was true, it is just proof that the system is broken. Who watches the watchmen?
They have the power. They just don't have the will.
This is just... wow. The breathtaking arrogance of it.
It's not often these swine can actually get a visceral reaction from me anymore, but wow. Time to get back to work on that Novelty Giant Cigar Chopper I'm working on.
This guy is a used douche.
Mighty fucking convenient. It’s this kind of stuff that tells me we are governed by children. “Nuh uh. Can’t do that. I’m on base. Na-na-na-boo-boo.”
Whom among you has the power to censor the censor!?
Edit: Also, where does this asshole get off? Congress doesn’t have the power? Let’s logic this out. Does congress have the power to pass laws? Do citizens have to obey laws? Are you a citizen? I can big brain this all day.
view more: next ›