Senate SCOTUS code of ethics

[Anonymous]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-ethics-bill-senate-judiciary-committee-clarence-thomas-harlan-crow/

Washington — The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday advanced legislation that would require the Supreme Court to adopt an ethics code, with Democrats following through on their pledge for legislative action after a series of reports about Justice Clarence Thomas' relationship with a Republican real estate magnate.

Called the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, the bill from lead sponsor Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse cleared the committee along party lines, 11-10. During the committee's consideration of the measure, Republicans introduced several amendments touching on the protests outside Supreme Court justices' homes, the leak of the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court expansion and imposing new rules on reporters who cover the high court.

Why would this need 60 votes to pass the senate? There is nothing in the constitution that says the senate needs 60 votes to pass a law or something like an ethics code. This is ridiculous. Stand up and fight democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-ethics-bill-senate-judiciary-committee-clarence-thomas-harlan-crow/

Washington — The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday advanced legislation that would require the Supreme Court to adopt an ethics code, with Democrats following through on their pledge for legislative action after a series of reports about Justice Clarence Thomas' relationship with a Republican real estate magnate.

Called the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, the bill from lead sponsor Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse cleared the committee along party lines, 11-10. During the committee's consideration of the measure, Republicans introduced several amendments touching on the protests outside Supreme Court justices' homes, the leak of the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court expansion and imposing new rules on reporters who cover the high court.

Why would this need 60 votes to pass the senate? There is nothing in the constitution that says the senate needs 60 votes to pass a law or something like an ethics code. This is ridiculous. Stand up and fight democrats.

You seem unfamiliar with how the Senate has operated for at least a hundred years. If ten Republicans can’t get behind this the blame is on them.

[Anonymous]

There is something called "separation of powers."

This act stomps all over that.

As I have noted previously, the SCERT Act would wreak havoc by creating a process by which people could submit complaints about Supreme Court justices to a panel of five appeals-court judges in an effort to disqualify them. The complaints may draw from a specific statute or regulation or simply allege “conduct that undermines the integrity of the Supreme Court.” That would enable a flood of disqualification motions in major cases, not to mention minor ones, in which anyone who wishes to see a justice removed from a case could throw a wrench into the process. It is another way to restructure the Court: Instead of pursuing the politically toxic tactic of packing it by adding justices, influence cases by subtracting them. Even falling short of that, this new mechanism would serve as a means of intimidating justices and delaying their work.

Whitehouse’s press release announcing the upcoming committee vote on his legislation makes only a fleeting mention of the bill’s complaint mechanism and not surprisingly does not include its details. It is, after all, easier to market such a package under the label “ethics” than under “restructuring the Court.” Whitehouse and the vast majority of his Democratic colleagues likely know that court-packing is going nowhere. Senator Ed Markey’s bill to add four justices to the Court, which had two cosponsors during the last Congress, has none so far in this one.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/oppose-the-democrats-latest-supreme-court-scheme/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is something called "separation of powers."

This act stomps all over that.

As I have noted previously, the SCERT Act would wreak havoc by creating a process by which people could submit complaints about Supreme Court justices to a panel of five appeals-court judges in an effort to disqualify them. The complaints may draw from a specific statute or regulation or simply allege “conduct that undermines the integrity of the Supreme Court.” That would enable a flood of disqualification motions in major cases, not to mention minor ones, in which anyone who wishes to see a justice removed from a case could throw a wrench into the process. It is another way to restructure the Court: Instead of pursuing the politically toxic tactic of packing it by adding justices, influence cases by subtracting them. Even falling short of that, this new mechanism would serve as a means of intimidating justices and delaying their work.

Whitehouse’s press release announcing the upcoming committee vote on his legislation makes only a fleeting mention of the bill’s complaint mechanism and not surprisingly does not include its details. It is, after all, easier to market such a package under the label “ethics” than under “restructuring the Court.” Whitehouse and the vast majority of his Democratic colleagues likely know that court-packing is going nowhere. Senator Ed Markey’s bill to add four justices to the Court, which had two cosponsors during the last Congress, has none so far in this one.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/oppose-the-democrats-latest-supreme-court-scheme/

Lol the national review? Please cite a serious publication. There is undisputed evidence of Supreme Court Justices working in coordination(including how to vote and inserted language in to decisions written by others) with outside groups and being compensated for their coordination. This is actuality happening now not some made up hypothetical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is something called "separation of powers."

This act stomps all over that.

As I have noted previously, the SCERT Act would wreak havoc by creating a process by which people could submit complaints about Supreme Court justices to a panel of five appeals-court judges in an effort to disqualify them. The complaints may draw from a specific statute or regulation or simply allege “conduct that undermines the integrity of the Supreme Court.” That would enable a flood of disqualification motions in major cases, not to mention minor ones, in which anyone who wishes to see a justice removed from a case could throw a wrench into the process. It is another way to restructure the Court: Instead of pursuing the politically toxic tactic of packing it by adding justices, influence cases by subtracting them. Even falling short of that, this new mechanism would serve as a means of intimidating justices and delaying their work.

Whitehouse’s press release announcing the upcoming committee vote on his legislation makes only a fleeting mention of the bill’s complaint mechanism and not surprisingly does not include its details. It is, after all, easier to market such a package under the label “ethics” than under “restructuring the Court.” Whitehouse and the vast majority of his Democratic colleagues likely know that court-packing is going nowhere. Senator Ed Markey’s bill to add four justices to the Court, which had two cosponsors during the last Congress, has none so far in this one.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/oppose-the-democrats-latest-supreme-court-scheme/

Fck around, find out. Republicans, you fcked around and now you need to find out. This SCOTUS is corrupt and illegitimate and needs to be replaced. Republican whining at the rest of us is entirely misplaced. You should have kicked FedSoc to the curb long ago because they are the ones who caused this corrupt and unaccountable mess of a Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is something called "separation of powers."

This act stomps all over that.

As I have noted previously, the SCERT Act would wreak havoc by creating a process by which people could submit complaints about Supreme Court justices to a panel of five appeals-court judges in an effort to disqualify them. The complaints may draw from a specific statute or regulation or simply allege “conduct that undermines the integrity of the Supreme Court.” That would enable a flood of disqualification motions in major cases, not to mention minor ones, in which anyone who wishes to see a justice removed from a case could throw a wrench into the process. It is another way to restructure the Court: Instead of pursuing the politically toxic tactic of packing it by adding justices, influence cases by subtracting them. Even falling short of that, this new mechanism would serve as a means of intimidating justices and delaying their work.

Whitehouse’s press release announcing the upcoming committee vote on his legislation makes only a fleeting mention of the bill’s complaint mechanism and not surprisingly does not include its details. It is, after all, easier to market such a package under the label “ethics” than under “restructuring the Court.” Whitehouse and the vast majority of his Democratic colleagues likely know that court-packing is going nowhere. Senator Ed Markey’s bill to add four justices to the Court, which had two cosponsors during the last Congress, has none so far in this one.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/oppose-the-democrats-latest-supreme-court-scheme/

The founders wanted checks and balances on the powers.