this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
119 points (97.6% liked)

News

22890 readers
3594 users here now

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.


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. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. 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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

But she also said the justices already agree they should hold themselves to the highest ethical standards possible.

“I think that’s something that I can’t really speak for the court about or make any sort of guess,” she said.

Barrett spoke as part of a lecture series named for Stein that has also brought to the university Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Chief Justice John Roberts. But security in and around the auditorium was notably tighter than for the other justices, following calls by activist groups to protest against Barrett’s appearance.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 53 points 11 months ago (2 children)

"But she also said the justices already agree they should hold themselves to the highest ethical standards possible."

They literally don't agree on that. Justice Thomas thinks he's done everything peachy and would have to be literally stupid to think there wasn't a more ethical way for him to conduct his affairs regarding accepting money and favors from influential party insiders.

[–] ShortBoweledClown@lemmy.one 23 points 11 months ago (1 children)

A bold-faced lie from someone who lied during her confirmation hearing?! Who would have thought

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And I doubt the justices on the left agree that Clarence Thomas believes he should hold himself to the highest ethical standards possible.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

You might be surprised, sadly.

[–] Zolidus@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

Zach Galifianakis has aged a lot

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

deleted by creator

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The only thing I can say for Barrett is that she's been marginally less awful than I expected, which I can't say for Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Gorsuch is at least predictable. He has a very established ideology and tends to remain consistent with it, such as finding that the Civil Right Act banning discrimination on the basis of sex implies that an employer cannot discriminate against someone in a relationship with a man simply because that employee is a man. He's also pretty passionate about Native American rights. Kavanaugh at least attempts to maintain some level of intellectual consistency and respectability.

Meanwhile, Alito and Thomas are utter shameless hacks.

[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Kavanaugh has been marginally less awful than I expected, occasionally siding with Roberts and the liberal justices for pretty much any 5-4 decisions that go against the conservatives. For instance, on the Alabama voting rights case. I think he's the median justice now. Which isn't saying a lot, but beat my expectations for him.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago

Shes gonna be really confused when she figures out what those words mean though.

[–] qooqie@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I still believe a good solution is that the supreme court should be split by the % party control in congress. No one is completely impartial so the judges would also need to disclose what party they fall under. And as majority shifts the judges with the most time there would be rotated out.

I don’t really think this solution is perfect, but I think it’s better than what we have.

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

There issue then is that you're likely to end up with a SCOTUS that always agrees with the ruling party.

My proposal would be to retire the longest-serving justice each time there is a presidential election, then use the national popular vote to decide which party gets to select his replacement.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

Many of the judges wind up evolving in ways you wouldn't entirely expect. Gorsuch and Roberts, for instance, wound up ruling that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected under the Civil Rights act.