Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All 9 justices issued an extremely rare--even unanimous--statement. It details how and why the Supreme Court decides recusals on cases and other ethical issues.

... Before very recently, it was rare to hear concerns about ethics at the Supreme Court.

Democrat[ically]-appointed Supreme Court justices:

- taught overseas

- took trips with their friends (even an attorney with regular business before the Court)

- amended their ethics filings, after failing to disclose issues (including years of a spouse's legal-related income)

- failed to recuse on matters

- even heard cases involving a spouse's law firm

...
Democrat politicians and their lapdogs in the media are now politicizing and weaponizing judicial ethics.

I see we're now in the "Democrats do it too" sequence of:

I didn't do it.
Even if I did it, it's not illegal.
Even if I did it and it's illegal, the way you found out about it was illegal.
Even if I did it, it's illegal, and the way you found out about it was legal, the other people do it too.
What I did is good, actually.

You’ll note that zero examples were provided by that fool. Because the right wing is the problem and even a mild google search shows that.

Anonymous wrote:

All 9 justices issued an extremely rare--even unanimous--statement. It details how and why the Supreme Court decides recusals on cases and other ethical issues.

... Before very recently, it was rare to hear concerns about ethics at the Supreme Court.

Democrat[ically]-appointed Supreme Court justices:

- taught overseas

- took trips with their friends (even an attorney with regular business before the Court)

- amended their ethics filings, after failing to disclose issues (including years of a spouse's legal-related income)

- failed to recuse on matters

- even heard cases involving a spouse's law firm

...
Democrat politicians and their lapdogs in the media are now politicizing and weaponizing judicial ethics.

I see we're now in the "Democrats do it too" sequence of:

I didn't do it.
Even if I did it, it's not illegal.
Even if I did it and it's illegal, the way you found out about it was illegal.
Even if I did it, it's illegal, and the way you found out about it was legal, the other people do it too.
What I did is good, actually.

All 9 justices issued an extremely rare--even unanimous--statement. It details how and why the Supreme Court decides recusals on cases and other ethical issues.

... Before very recently, it was rare to hear concerns about ethics at the Supreme Court.

Democrat[ically]-appointed Supreme Court justices:

- taught overseas

- took trips with their friends (even an attorney with regular business before the Court)

- amended their ethics filings, after failing to disclose issues (including years of a spouse's legal-related income)

- failed to recuse on matters

- even heard cases involving a spouse's law firm

...
Democrat politicians and their lapdogs in the media are now politicizing and weaponizing judicial ethics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Extended tweet content: (there is more, but this is the gist)

ICYMI from April 25, 2023:

All 9 justices issued an extremely rare--even unanimous--statement.

It details how and why the Supreme Court decides recusals on cases and other ethical issues.

It is carefully written, well-reasoned, and entirely convincing.

It should put to rest all the Democrats' (fake, political) concerns about Supreme Court ethics.

Before very recently, it was rare to hear concerns about ethics at the Supreme Court.

Democrat-appointed Supreme Court justices:

- taught overseas

- took trips with their friends (even an attorney with regular business before the Court)

- amended their ethics filings, after failing to disclose issues (including years of a spouse's legal-related income)

- failed to recuse on matters

- even heard cases involving a spouse's law firm

These were never treated as scandalous.

We never heard a peep from the media.

Until now.

Democrat politicians and their lapdogs in the media are now politicizing and weaponizing judicial ethics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This frankly pathetically weak. Why are they asking SCOTUS to write the rules? Congress needs to write them. It is Congress' job to write laws, not SCOTUS's. Congress has been ceding power to SCOTUS for decades now, and that's the root of the problem. Congress used to exercise significant control over SCOTUS. Now SCOTUS gets to pick its own cases, handle its own budget, and write its own rules. They are essentially above the law and they act like it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is precendent: Abe Fortas was forced to resign by then Chief Justice Earl Warren for very similar reasons. Too bad Roberts lacks the cojones to do the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe and Ginni are simply not smart enough to hold th positions they do

Is lying on a federal form not a crime?

That's no misunderstanding.

He committed a crime.

So either he’s unfit because he’s a criminal or because he’s so stupid he doesn’t even know how to read.

It’s worse. With all he has going on financially, he needs an accountant and tax attorney/ attorney who specializes in this. Dude is on SCOTUS. This isn’t some shocker to him. He’s unfit either because he’s a criminal or because he’s so stupid that after multiple problems with his disclosure forms, he’s a lawyer who hasn’t hired an accountant/lawyer. Even Trump used an accounting firm (Mazars). That’s what puzzles me. Hire a good lawyer. Have them do your taxes and draft these forms for you to review. He’s getting millions in passive income. He can afford a law firm. Who does his taxes and do they have the same mistakes?

This goes beyond “I’m too important to be bothered to do the form right”. It’s “I’m too important to be bothered to hire someone to do this silly little form for me. (After the third time there has been a public scandal because I did it wrong”.

John Roberts bears responsibility to. I’ve clerked. Our Court took these seriously, top to bottom. The Court keeps saying it can self regulate. But there are no sanctions, starting with a public statement from the Court, for blowing them off.

Roberts can't do anything because Thomas can't be removed absent impeachment (which republicans would never support). Rules only matter when you have the power to enforce them

Roberts could bring pressure to bear to get Thomas to resign and leave the court with a shred of dignity, but he’s not going to. Roberts puts a well behaved gloss on things, but he’s as big a fascist as the rest of the regressive justices. He participated in the Brooks Brothers riot, same as Amy and Bretty.

I'm not sure what the rules of the court might allow - could Roberts (or a court majority) avoid assigning him any opinions, refuse to allow him to ask questions during oral argument (not much of a penalty!), not publish his dissents, not allow him to vote on cases?

You can't pull his vote- that's the whole life time tenure thing. Roberts could refuse to assign him opinions, but he can concur or dissent and other judges are free to join his concurrences which could give you an awkward situation where the opinion has 1 vote, the concurrence has 5 justices joining it and the dissent has 3.

Life tenure doesn't mean you have a lifetime vote. For example, on the circuit courts, judges on senior status don't get to vote on en banc appeals.

Judges choose to take senior judge status. Thomas would never choose to not vote

It can actually be forced too. That process is going on right now with Judge Newman on the Federal Circuit.

+1 thank you for bringing this up.

The supreme court isn't subject to that law

Anonymous wrote:There is precendent: Abe Fortas was forced to resign by then Chief Justice Earl Warren for very similar reasons. Too bad Roberts lacks the cojones to do the same.