12 points

The dude is out of control.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

@ShooBoo @MicroWave

… yet still in control of SCOTUS.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

This old man refuses to let go of his SCROTUS

permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points

Then who exactly is supposed to be the check on the courts? Is that not precisely the domain of the legislative wing of govt? That’s like some basic civics shit.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

It’s bullshit, but he’s probably not wrong. The Legislature’s checks on the Judiciary are primarily:

  1. Funding
  2. Congress has the authority to create all courts below SCOTUS and provide for those courts’ jurisdiction
permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

There’s a key trick to evaluating statements by the republican justices… re-read anything they say from the lens of they are completely full of shit and have zero integrity.

These are not serious people. Don’t discuss them as if they are. Tell your own representatives that they need to act on this LOUDLY or they will lose your vote.

permalink
report
reply
11 points

They have the power. They just don’t have the will.

permalink
report
reply
23 points

I feel the supreme court is playing a game of fuck around and find out here. Hate to say it but supreme court ethics has pretty bipartisan support. These people are entrusted to be above that kind of behavior, but it’s already been shown that every member of the court has something to hide. If they’re not willing to self police themselves we will police them ourselves.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

supreme court ethics has pretty bipartisan support

Except, it absolutely does not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I mean, you should probably walk that back a bit.

The liberal justices surely aren’t vocal enough about the need for ethics oversight (likely because they’ve been threatened by other justices in the majority and told that if they stay aligned with the fascist judges on some of this that the judges will vote on the side of the actual merit of the cases for some of the “lesser” cases that come through the court".

There is no room for these blanket false equivalencies though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Giving in to threats or agreeing to some kind of quid pro quo system would also be corruption. If some justices are threatening others, that should absolutely be exposed and supreme court justices are in one of the best positions to do that exposing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Sorry but I think the whole of the supreme court is rotten to the core as it stands, and I think some ethics are in dire need. If you think the liberal justices aren’t getting kickback, sweetheart deals, or vacations from wealthy billionaires, you’re kidding yourself. They’re going to push back on ethics because it might expose the true scale of the corruption in the supreme court. So you can give them a pass if you want, but the whole point of lifetime appointment was to rise above politics and currying favor, and as I see it in my life time the supreme Court has done little to improve people’s lives, but corporations have benefited to a great deal. I don’t think for a moment I think Congress is any better they’re rotten too, but they at least have to report their gifts. Like I said the bear f****** minimum.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Show me where the liberal judges are getting kick backs please. Otherwise that’s all just nonsense speculation to make them look as bad as the actual corrupt republican ones are.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 17K

    Monthly active users

  • 25K

    Posts

  • 621K

    Comments