Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m sure it is upsetting that federal voting law be followed by judges and states for those who want to override it in the courts to service their own political ideology. If we’ve learned anything in this election cycle, it’s that the ends justify the means in the Democratic Party.
The GOP are the ones subverting free and fair elections and trying to suppress votes.
But you know that.
GOP are lying cheaters. It's that simple.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m sure it is upsetting that federal voting law be followed by judges and states for those who want to override it in the courts to service their own political ideology. If we’ve learned anything in this election cycle, it’s that the ends justify the means in the Democratic Party.
What? Your post makes no sense.
Anonymous wrote:I’m sure it is upsetting that federal voting law be followed by judges and states for those who want to override it in the courts to service their own political ideology. If we’ve learned anything in this election cycle, it’s that the ends justify the means in the Democratic Party.
Anonymous wrote:I’m sure it is upsetting that federal voting law be followed by judges and states for those who want to override it in the courts to service their own political ideology. If we’ve learned anything in this election cycle, it’s that the ends justify the means in the Democratic Party.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
There are currently no ethics regulations pertaining to the Supreme Court and no outside authority with the power to enforce any. They’re bound only by their own consciences, integrity, and sense of propriety. That’s the problem.
Have crimes been committed?
https://www.khon2.com/news/politics/ap-politics/ap-justice-jackson-reports-a-900000-book-advance-and-tickets-from-beyonce/
The justices adopted an ethics code in November, though it lacks a means of enforcement. The code treats travel, food and lodging as expenses rather than gifts, for which monetary values must be reported. Justices aren’t required to attach a value to expenses.
In March, the federal judiciary began requiring judges to disclose travel-related gifts and their values — rather than reporting such gifts as reimbursements. The justices say they generally abide by the same rules, but Thomas did not disclose the cost of the Bali hotel.
Some Democratic lawmakers are continuing to press legislation that would require the court to adopt a binding code of conduct and provide for investigations of alleged violations. But the prospect for such legislation is considered remote in a closely divided Congress.
The code treats travel, food and lodging as expenses rather than gifts, for which monetary values must be reported. Justices aren’t required to attach a value to expenses.
Anonymous wrote:So it’s Ok for a Justice to accept free stuff, but a fed employee can’t accept anything over what, 25 bucks?
Anonymous wrote:
There are currently no ethics regulations pertaining to the Supreme Court and no outside authority with the power to enforce any. They’re bound only by their own consciences, integrity, and sense of propriety. That’s the problem.
Have crimes been committed?