Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor’s staff prodded colleges and libraries to buy her books

[BabyBoomer50s]

From AP News. Probably not a violation of the SCOTUS Ethics Principles and Practices. And unlikely to draw much criticism from Chuck Schumer, Sheldon “Whites Only” Whitehouse, AOC, Biden, and other left wingers who have been shrieking about Justices Thomas and Alito.

“Sotomayor’s staff has often prodded public institutions that have hosted the justice to buy her memoir or children’s books, works that have earned her at least $3.7 million since she joined the court in 2009. Details of those events, largely out of public view, were obtained by The Associated Press through more than 100 open records requests to public institutions. The resulting tens of thousands of pages of documents offer a rare look at Sotomayor and her fellow justices beyond their official duties.“

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-...ics-colleges-b2cb93493f927f995829762cb8338c02

 

[Comshaw]

From AP News. Probably not a violation of the SCOTUS Ethics Principles and Practices. And unlikely to draw much criticism from Chuck Schumer, Sheldon “Whites Only” Whitehouse, AOC, Biden, and other left wingers who have been shrieking about Justices Thomas and Alito.

“Sotomayor’s staff has often prodded public institutions that have hosted the justice to buy her memoir or children’s books, works that have earned her at least $3.7 million since she joined the court in 2009. Details of those events, largely out of public view, were obtained by The Associated Press through more than 100 open records requests to public institutions. The resulting tens of thousands of pages of documents offer a rare look at Sotomayor and her fellow justices beyond their official duties.“

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-...ics-colleges-b2cb93493f927f995829762cb8338c02

Sorry dude, but SCOTUS DOES NOT HAVE any such thing as "Ethics Principles and Practices". I for one am not naive enough to believe that liberal judges have not done such things.

That said, this SHOULD be enough for both sides to understand that the Supreme Court Justices ought to have such a code of ethics to control their behavior. Such a code has nothing to do with conservative or liberal judges. It has everything to do with power and how it influences people. Two universal rules that govern this:

1) Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
2) NEVER put the fox in charge of the hen house.

The Supreme Court judges have refused to institute any kind of ethics code even though they were requested to draw it up themselves. I've been the same type of mindset transpire here in my state. The people of the state passed an open records act a number of years ago. A year ago the legislature in a midnight sneak vote tried to exclude themselves from that requirement. The people found out and the switchboard and emails of the legislators at the capital were so packed with angry opinions from the voters that all communications through those were shut down for a day or two. Needless to say, they rescinded that bill.

A code of ethics for SCOTUS would be like a lock on a door, it keeps somewhat honest people honest. Right now the people of the country are pissed at SCOTUS because they are SUPPOSED to be the best of us, the most fair and balanced of us. But when their warts show through, like this, most begin to understand that they cannot be relied upon to police themselves. Again it has NOTHING to do with being conservative or liberal, or about any ruling they have made. It has everything to do with keeping them as unsullied and as honest as they should be. They wield way to much power to do otherwise.

Comshaw

 

[Lazaran]

Sorry dude, but SCOTUS DOES NOT HAVE any such thing as "Ethics Principles and Practices". I for one am not naive enough to believe that liberal judges have not done such things.

That said, this SHOULD be enough for both sides to understand that the Supreme Court Justices ought to have such a code of ethics to control their behavior. Such a code has nothing to do with conservative or liberal judges. It has everything to do with power and how it influences people. Two universal rules that govern this:

1) Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
2) NEVER put the fox in charge of the hen house.

The Supreme Court judges have refused to institute any kind of ethics code even though they were requested to draw it up themselves. I've been the same type of mindset transpire here in my state. The people of the state passed an open records act a number of years ago. A year ago the legislature in a midnight sneak vote tried to exclude themselves from that requirement. The people found out and the switchboard and emails of the legislators at the capital were so packed with angry opinions from the voters that all communications through those were shut down for a day or two. Needless to say, they rescinded that bill.

A code of ethics for SCOTUS would be like a lock on a door, it keeps somewhat honest people honest. Right now the people of the country are pissed at SCOTUS because they are SUPPOSED to be the best of us, the most fair and balanced of us. But when their warts show through, like this, most begin to understand that they cannot be relied upon to police themselves. Again it has NOTHING to do with being conservative or liberal, or about any ruling they have made. It has everything to do with keeping them as unsullied and as honest as they should be. They wield way to much power to do otherwise.

Comshaw

•
Score one for BabyBoobs.



The lying, gaslighting POS got you to accept their apples to oranges, bothaidesism / whataboutism bullshit narrative.



The nothing burger smothered in weak sauce premise / accusation in the thread title should have alerted you to a gaslighting attack in progress.



I’m guessing you aren’t active enough here on the PB to know BabyBoobs’ gaslighting game when you see it.

 

[RoryN]

LOL - this is the best you've got: book sales?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Sorry dude, but SCOTUS DOES NOT HAVE any such thing as "Ethics Principles and Practices". I for one am not naive enough to believe that liberal judges have not done such things.

That said, this SHOULD be enough for both sides to understand that the Supreme Court Justices ought to have such a code of ethics to control their behavior. Such a code has nothing to do with conservative or liberal judges. It has everything to do with power and how it influences people. Two universal rules that govern this:

1) Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
2) NEVER put the fox in charge of the hen house.

The Supreme Court judges have refused to institute any kind of ethics code even though they were requested to draw it up themselves. I've been the same type of mindset transpire here in my state. The people of the state passed an open records act a number of years ago. A year ago the legislature in a midnight sneak vote tried to exclude themselves from that requirement. The people found out and the switchboard and emails of the legislators at the capital were so packed with angry opinions from the voters that all communications through those were shut down for a day or two. Needless to say, they rescinded that bill.

A code of ethics for SCOTUS would be like a lock on a door, it keeps somewhat honest people honest. Right now the people of the country are pissed at SCOTUS because they are SUPPOSED to be the best of us, the most fair and balanced of us. But when their warts show through, like this, most begin to understand that they cannot be relied upon to police themselves. Again it has NOTHING to do with being conservative or liberal, or about any ruling they have made. It has everything to do with keeping them as unsullied and as honest as they should be. They wield way to much power to do otherwise.

Comshaw

I was referring to this document. There are legitimate arguments for more comprehensive and binding rules, and there is legitimate debate over which branch of government sets those rules. Not surprisingly, the left wingers who have been bitching about Thomas and Alito are keeping quiet about this one. Lol

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter to Chairman Durbin 04.25.2023.pdf

 

[Lazaran]

•
Yeah, and “left wingers” don’t breathlessly promote McDonalds to people as a gourmet fine dining experience either.

BabyBoobs

 

[Comshaw]

I was referring to this document. There are legitimate arguments for more comprehensive and binding rules, and there is legitimate debate over which branch of government sets those rules. Not surprisingly, the left wingers who have been bitching about Thomas and Alito are keeping quiet about this one. Lol

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter to Chairman Durbin 04.25.2023.pdf

Personally, I think Congress should issue an ultimatum. Tell SCOTUS: "You do it, or we do." It needs to happen. The majority of the people of this country have lost much of the reverence that they use to hold for SCOTUS. That needs to change. We need to know that those with power are also being held accountable for their actions.

The thing I have difficulty understanding is why SCOTUS is fighting it. They have the opportunity to make the rules they will live under. Instead, they refuse and don't want any. For my money that is an indication of wanting to be free to do whatever they wish to do. And that is never a good idea, for anyone. Especially those who interpret the rules the rest of us live under and who have few rules live by.

Comshaw

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

•
Yeah, and “left wingers” don’t breathlessly promote McDonalds to people as a gourmet fine dining experience either.

BabyBoobs

Ok. That’s good to know I guess.

 

[Comshaw]

•
Score one for BabyBoobs.



The lying, gaslighting POS got you to accept their apples to oranges, bothaidesism / whataboutism bullshit narrative.



The nothing burger smothered in weak sauce premise / accusation in the thread title should have alerted you to a gaslighting attack in progress.



I’m guessing you aren’t active enough here on the PB to know BabyBoobs’ gaslighting game when you see it.

I am plenty active here and I know and understand the personalities involved, his and yours. Gaslighting, whataboutism, it doesn't matter. The ENTIRE court is involved in this, not just the current uber-bad guy Thomas. SCOTUS should have had a code of ethics a long time ago. But even when the court had a liberal majority they refused, so it isn't about con ver lib or about the recently discovered pocket lining by Thomas and others. It's about doing the right thing for the country. Those who make the decisions that affect all our lives need to be the best of the best. To that end, a set of ethical rules for them to follow is a small price for them to pay to wield that power. The one thing I would add is that a serious breach of those rules should trigger an automatic impeachment hearing.

Comshaw

 

[Rotadom]

boomer and the posse desperately looking for Dem baddies.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

boomer and the posse desperately looking for Dem baddies.


View attachment 2249597

AP reported the story.

 

[Rotadom]

AP reported the story.

You are a very clueless individual.

 

[Lazaran]

I am plenty active here and I know and understand the personalities involved, his and yours. Gaslighting, whataboutism, it doesn't matter. The ENTIRE court is involved in this, not just the current uber-bad guy Thomas. SCOTUS should have had a code of ethics a long time ago. But even when the court had a liberal majority they refused, so it isn't about con ver lib or about the recently discovered pocket lining by Thomas and others. It's about doing the right thing for the country. Those who make the decisions that affect all our lives need to be the best of the best. To that end, a set of ethical rules for them to follow is a small price for them to pay to wield that power. The one thing I would add is that a serious breach of those rules should trigger an automatic impeachment hearing.

Comshaw

•
And STILL you parrot the bullshit “they’re all the “SAME”.narrative.

Pro-Tip:

NO, THEY ARE NOT ALL THE SAME.

Apple to oranges has meaning.

Especially when there is currently NO CODE OF ETHICS.

The court of public opinion is left to call balls and strikes and degree of ethical violations.

This ^ leads me to “rule”, BASED ON ACTUAL EVIDENCE, that the conservative “justices” on the SCOTUS have violated ethical judicial norms FAR more egregiously than the “liberal” justices have.

Of course, we will NEVER get back the conservative majority SCOTUS “rulings” that were tainted by dark money influence.

A future court MIGHT right some of the wrongs, but in the meanwhile, common people are denied justice.

 

[Comshaw]

•
And STILL you parrot the bullshit “they’re all the “SAME”.narrative.

Pro-Tip:

NO, THEY ARE NOT ALL THE SAME.

Apple to oranges has meaning.

Especially when there is currently NO CODE OF ETHICS.

The court of public opinion is left to call balls and strikes and degree of ethical violations.

This ^ leads me to “rule”, BASED ON ACTUAL EVIDENCE, that the conservative “justices” on the SCOTUS have violated ethical judicial norms FAR more egregiously than the “liberal” justices have.

Of course, we will NEVER get back the conservative majority SCOTUS “rulings” that were tainted by dark money influence.

A future court MIGHT right some of the wrongs, but in the meanwhile, common people are denied justice.

If I steal a car it's stealing, right? If I steal a pencil, is it still stealing? Of course it is. They are both the same in intent if not in degree. So no it isn't "apples and oranges". It's more like Honey Crisp vrs Crab apples, both the same in essence if not in taste.

Maybe you can play the game of "well they did worse!" and justify it in your head. All I'll say about that is over time you have taken many on the other side to task for the same lame tactic. A double standard if there ever was one.

So I'm done. Just as I have when arguing with Harpy or Que of AJ, I grow tired of trying to point out the flaws in your argument only to be met with a motorboat...but, but, but, but...

TA

Comshaw

 

[adrina]

If I steal a car it's stealing, right? If I steal a pencil, is it still stealing? Of course it is. They are both the same in intent if not in degree. So no it isn't "apples and oranges". It's more like Honey Crisp vrs Crab apples, both the same in essence if not in taste.

Maybe you can play the game of "well they did worse!" and justify it in your head. All I'll say about that is over time you have taken many on the other side to task for the same lame tactic. A double standard if there ever was one.

So I'm done. Just as I have when arguing with Harpy or Que of AJ, I grow tired of trying to point out the flaws in your argument only to be met with a motorboat...but, but, but, but...

TA

Comshaw

I agree with you in spirit - in that the entire bench needs to have a formal code of ethics as there are obvious violations from both sides of the bench. However the part in which I disagree is the degree of unethical behavior.

I believe the more accurate analogy would be that it is 5 pounds of honey crisp apples to about 1.5 pounds of crab apples. Both apples, both problematic but not quite the same scale. There is a reason the law delineates crimes by degrees. A $5000 theft is treated very differently than a $500 theft.

 

[Lazaran]

I agree with you in spirit - in that the entire bench needs to have a formal code of ethics as there are obvious violations from both sides of the bench. However the part in which I disagree is the degree of unethical behavior.

I believe the more accurate analogy would be that it is 5 pounds of honey crisp apples to about 1.5 pounds of crab apples. Both apples, both problematic but not quite the same scale. There is a reason the law delineates crimes by degrees. A $5000 theft is treated very differently than a $500 theft.

•
Yeah, my definition of “THE SAME”, and “some” other people’s definition of “THE SAME” is obviously veeeeeeeery different.

 

[HisArpy]

If I steal a car it's stealing, right? If I steal a pencil, is it still stealing? Of course it is. They are both the same in intent if not in degree. So no it isn't "apples and oranges". It's more like Honey Crisp vrs Crab apples, both the same in essence if not in taste.

Maybe you can play the game of "well they did worse!" and justify it in your head. All I'll say about that is over time you have taken many on the other side to task for the same lame tactic. A double standard if there ever was one.

So I'm done. Just as I have when arguing with Harpy or Que of AJ, I grow tired of trying to point out the flaws in your argument only to be met with a motorboat...but, but, but, but...

TA

Comshaw

I have 2 observations:

1. Lately your posts make it appear like you're waking up and realizing that liberal nirvana isn't what it's cracked up to be. Welcome to the real world.

2. Your belief that Congress gets to tell an independent branch of the government what to do has problems when that independent branch has a mandate to tell Congress to stick it when Congress goes too far. I mean who do you think is going to review any legislation imposing "ethics" on the Supreme Court? A court which is currently opposed to that legislation and is, I repeat, an independent branch of the Government with a mandate to determine the constitutionality of any law passed by Congress. Including laws imposing "ethics" on them.

Basically your idea of Congress telling The Supremes "either you do it or we will" is an empty threat which will do nothing except provoke the court. Not a good idea.

 

[Rotadom]

I have 2 observations:

 

[HisArpy]

View attachment 2249791

I'm more into free radicals and carbon instead of promoting some whacky pop singer trying to get a hit single about apple trees. I mean who could take anyone seriously with lyrics like;

"You're the one that I want
Oo Oo Oo granny smith"

 

[Rotadom]

I'm more into free radicals and carbon

LOL. How would you know?

 

[HisArpy]

LOL. How would you know?

I know a lot.

For instance, I know there are many different words for snow. I also know not eat snow when it's yellow; something you have yet to learn.

 

[Rotadom]

I know a lot.

For instance, I know there are many different words for snow. I also know not eat snow when it's yellow; something you have yet to learn.

It's not my fault that you learned not to eat the yellow snow that hard way.

I'm sure it only took you a dozen times to figure out.

 

[HisArpy]

It's not my fault that you learned not to eat the yellow snow that hard way.

I'm sure it only took you a dozen times to figure out.

Oh, I'm wounded. Pierced through the heart. *Gasp!* Harpooned by one of Lit's plageristic Captain Ahab's.

THIS is what I get after all I've done for them/they/zits/pimples!

Ungrateful little fucker. I'm wounded I tell ya. Wounded right where it hurts the most. My bandaid stash may never recover from the massive raid on it.

 

[Rotadom]

plageristic

I'm what?

 

[HisArpy]

I'm what?

A dooRmat.

Or did you miss the people-routinely-wipe-their-boots-on-your-face bit of news the first 900 times it was mentioned?