Is It Time To Replace All Nine of The Nine?

[jaF0]

All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight: 'Raises more questions,' Senate chair says​

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/abcnews.go.com.icoABC|1 hour ago
All nine Supreme Court justices, in a rare move, signed a joint statement rebutting proposals for independent ethics oversight, mandatory rules and greater transparency


'Raises more questions' indeed. And more urgency to impose oversight. External oversight, the kind they can't act against.

 

[ll74]

They're the only governmental agency who has no code of ethics.

 

[JohnnySavage]

It's an interesting Constitutional question. I haven't settled on my position yet.

 

[jaF0]

^^^ It's easy for me. Checks and balances. An Independent Judiciary does not mean an autonomous or unaccountable Judiciary.

Benny Yahu is having a similar issue, but his angle is to control the Court and their decisions and disregard the ones he doesn't like. I don't want that, but

I do want accountability and for the Legislature and Executive to have the means to overturn their decisions, though it would not be an easy process to subvert. I've said before, I saw the inside workings of a US District Court, one of the largest in the country. MASSIVE reforms are needed to curtail their egos.

 

[JohnnySavage]

It's easy for you because you aren't a critical thinker.

There's a large corpus juris regarding the Constitution's separation of powers clause. By way of example, suppose Congress enacted a law that subjected the Justices to some ethical code; then the Court simply invalidated the law under Marbury?

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's an interesting Constitutional question. I haven't settled on my position yet.

Hopefully Fox will decide on a replacement for Tucker Carlson soon. It's so sad seeing Hillbilly Johnny wandering around so unfocused...

 

[jaF0]

The Court invalidating a duly passed law that imposes restrictions on the Court would be a conflict of interest.

If 'separation of powers' were all that high and mighty, the Court would not have jurisdiction over the other two branches.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Hopefully Fox will decide on a replacement for Tucker Carlson soon. It's so sad seeing Hillbilly Johnny wandering around so unfocused...

Call me a Gook.

You know you want to. Racists like you just can't help it.

 

[jaF0]

PlantBoi?

 

[Chernosoth]

Mod is a tiny amount of power. It can be enough to start fantasies of overthrowing institutions.

 

[Dribble]

Can't fix a broken system using the broken system. Isn't rocket science

 

[HisArpy]

The Court invalidating a duly passed law that imposes restrictions on the Court would be a conflict of interest.

If 'separation of powers' were all that high and mighty, the Court would not have jurisdiction over the other two branches.

Except that the Constitution gives it that power.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

US Constitution, Art. III, Sec. II.

 

[butters]

^^^ It's easy for me. Checks and balances. An Independent Judiciary does not mean an autonomous or unaccountable Judiciary.

^^this

 

[Rightguide]

Except that the Constitution gives it that power.

The amount of ignorance in some is stunning. After a review of Article III, maybe they should take a lesson from Marbury v Madison as well.

 

[HisArpy]

The amount of ignorance in some is stunning. After a review of Article III, maybe they should take a lesson from Marbury v Madison as well.

The ones like JaFo only read headlines and swallow the lies they're fed because that's the easy path.

Amazingly they also fight like hell against the truth once it's pointed out to them. Why? Because reading headlines and swallowing lies is the easy path and once they stop doing that they're stuck on the higher and more difficult road. They want and crave easy. They will sabotage their own future for that life of ease. Even when that life is short and filled with horror they will still seek it out.

Because it's easy.

 

[Rightguide]

The ones like JaFo only read headlines and swallow the lies they're fed because that's the easy path.

Amazingly they also fight like hell against the truth once it's pointed out to them. Why? Because reading headlines and swallowing lies is the easy path and once they stop doing that they're stuck on the higher and more difficult road. They want and crave easy. They will sabotage their own future for that life of ease. Even when that life is short and filled with horror they will still seek it out.

Because it's easy.

It's probably an easy life for a while, being ignorant and in the dark, until reality arrives to give them an obnoxious goose.

 

[JohnEngelman]

As long as the American electorate is evenly divided and polarized I can see benefits the separation of powers because it can lead to gridlock. Gridlock prevents one of the two major political parties from passing laws that will be passionately opposed by members of the other major political party. Gridlock forces moderation and compromise when the extremists on both sides are making most of the noise.

Until a comfortable majority of the electorate are agreed on basic issues I am opposed to major changes in any direction.

Nevertheless, I dislike the power the Supreme Court has to overturn popular legislation that has been in effect for a long time.

As long as the Supreme Court makes decisions one agrees with it is easy to imagine that it consists of nine sages of infinite wisdom who spend their days poring over ancient manuscripts in search of The Absolute Truth.

The reality is that Supreme Court justices project their values into the frequently ambiguous wording of parts of the Constitution. Supreme Court justices may change their opinions dramatically after they join the Court.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The Court invalidating a duly passed law that imposes restrictions on the Court would be a conflict of interest.

If 'separation of powers' were all that high and mighty, the Court would not have jurisdiction over the other two branches.

Yes. The Extreme Court is positioning itself as "above checks and balances", first among equals.

An Amendment specifying a SC Code of Conduct (and a justice term limit of 18 years) would be a good solution.

 

[HisArpy]

It's probably an easy life for a while, being ignorant and in the dark, until reality arrives to give them an obnoxious goose.

Many are so far gone they will lie to themselves about what they're doing even as they jump.

 

[jaF0]

The problem may be far bigger than Clarence.

'Inside baseball': Critics say academia has 'troubling' influence with the Supreme Court​

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/abcnews.go.com.icoABC|2 days ago
Free travel and honoraria from academic institutions has raised questions about schools leveraging their resources to gain access justices of the Supreme Court.

 

[BluesDriver66]

Yes. The Extreme Court is positioning itself as "above checks and balances", first among equals.

An Amendment specifying a SC Code of Conduct (and a justice term limit of 18 years) would be a good solution.

Give them four years like everybody else with no term limits. There are no legitimate reasons to give Justices abnormally long appointments and many reasons not to. If they are good at the job I have no problem with re-appointments after a performance review through additional confirmation hearings.

Also serious jail time for ethics violations. Justices should be beyond reproach and adhere to a higher standard. I would also increase the number of Justices to 15 or 21. Nine is not some magic number and does not reflect the diversity of ethnic, religious, economic, or political opinions of hundreds of millions of Americans.

 

[HisArpy]

The problem may be far bigger than Clarence.

'Inside baseball': Critics say academia has 'troubling' influence with the Supreme Court​

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/abcnews.go.com.icoABC|2 days ago
Free travel and honoraria from academic institutions has raised questions about schools leveraging their resources to gain access justices of the Supreme Court.

This is nothing new. Anyone who regularly follows the events in the Beltway understands that influence is everywhere and involves everything.


The issue here is that you believe that one independent branch of the gov should be under the direct oversight of another branch. That's not the way it works and the only reason you desire that outcome is so you can completely control the branch which exists solely to check your excesses.

It is a blatant attempt on your part to influence the justice system but instead of dangling a carrot in the form of gifts you wish to gain the power to use the stick directly while also claiming that you were forced to do it.

Which is the rallying cry of every abuser out there - you made me hurt you.

 

[jaF0]

Chief Justice John Roberts defends Supreme Court's 'highest standards of conduct,' offers no new rules​

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/abcnews.go.com.icoABC|18 minutes ago
Chief Justice John Roberts defended the integrity of the Supreme Court in public remarks following a barrage of misconduct allegations against Justice Clarence Thomas.



Answer to the thread title question appears to be Yes.

 

[KeithD]

Through his high-earning lawyer wife, chomping on her connections to him, John Roberts has no standing on standard of conduct ethics.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes. The Extreme Court is positioning itself as "above checks and balances", first among equals.

An Amendment specifying a SC Code of Conduct (and a justice term limit of 18 years) would be a good solution.

Stop whining. It's unmanly.