Think about this for a second: a Supreme Court justice thinks NO ONE has the power to hold them to an ethical standard. I can think of no better reason to hold them to an ethical standard than that.
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
112 points (98.3% liked)
News
23367 readers
3106 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. 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. 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
Yeah really, if a justice literally says checks and balances don't exist, maybe we should listen and respond accordingly. Also maybe we should fire him, and most of the others.
Exactly. Checks and balances motherfucker! We need to swing the scales back into balance so hard. He and Thomas are launched into orbit and never heard from again. Run over by an orbiting Tesla.
Congress already has a check against SCOTUS, impeachment. Alito is actually probably right here. It would take a constitutional amendment to create a new lever for congress to pull.
Which is complete ass because it will never happen. That document is a failure in the 21st century and is holding us back.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is genuinely quite a scary belief coming from a SCOTUS justice. In effect he is saying that the SCOTUS is the only institution in the US that is completely untouchable by legislation. That elevates the SCOTUS to a level beyond any other government position. Effectively our benevolent overlords. Given how low of approval ratings that the SCOTUS has, their recent series of ideological activist decisions, and the fact that they aren't even elected positions, I find myself increasingly in support of a fundamental redefinition of the SCOTUS as we know it. I don't see why we shouldn't stack the SCOTUS when they've fundamentally abandoned their duty to any level of fairness or responsibility for the citizens of the US.
Unelected, serve for life, say they are untouchable and can do as they please. How is that not a king?
Any position that is for life is too long, especially an appointed one with almost zero mechanisms for removal.
Almost, impeachment is one big one allowed. I believe only one justice was impeached but I bet the issue is, you can't get republicans to agree as then democrats can put one in. Which is a terrible injustice so they'll make sure to vote down anything to make sure the supreme court stays right winged.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(11 replies)
It's also an incredibly dangerous thing for a justice to say because it just begs for a constitutional test. The court is probably best known for the ability to decide whether a law is constitutional, or judicial review, which is not spelled out in the constitution. So let's say congress passes a law concerning ethics on the court and the court says "that's not constitutional" and congress just goes "neither is judicial review." Pure chaos. The courts power mostly is like that episode of The Office where Pam says she's the office manager and everyone just goes along with it. The court says it has judicial review authority, and everyone just went "ok."
load more comments
(4 replies)
Fortunately, congress does have the power to impeach and remove a supreme court judge.
It would be, if we elected people who cared more about doing good than they do about increasing their own fortunes.
In theory. In practice getting 2/3 of the Senate to agree on anything is pretty much impossible.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
If Congress lacks the authority to regulate the Supreme Court, then certainly they also lack the authority to fund the Supreme Court...
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
supreme court ethics has pretty bipartisan support
Except, it absolutely does not.
Alito is wrong. Just like he’s wrong about a lot of other things.
Sure sure, and by that logic, I also submit that the Supreme Court lacks the power to impose their own ethics on an entire gender.
Well, as I see it, Mr. Alito... You can either have Congress do it, or you can have an angry mob do it. Which do you prefer?
I'll believe it when I see it, Americans are quite pacified.
We're not as rowdy as we need to be, but you're not going to get the full picture from corporate media. They have a vested interest in downplaying or vilifying everything rad we do.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
State judiciary: powerless versus their congress.
Federal judiciary: unquestionable.
Get the fuck out of our government, you miserable bastard.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
— Article I Section 8 Clause 18 US Constitution
The Constitution indicates that Congress gets to set the laws that are necessary for proper execution of all the powers enumerated in the Constitution.
IF THIS ISN'T GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS
Alito basically admitted to conspiracy against the government
This is just... wow. The breathtaking arrogance of it.
It's not often these swine can actually get a visceral reaction from me anymore, but wow. Time to get back to work on that Novelty Giant Cigar Chopper I'm working on.
Justice Samuel Alito says Congress lacks the power to impose a code of ethics on the Supreme Court, making him the first member of the court to take a public stand against proposals in Congress to toughen ethics rules for justices in response to increased scrutiny of their activities beyond the bench.
And remember, Alito and Thomas were nominated by the so-called "moderate" Bush family.
They have the power. They just don't have the will.
Mighty fucking convenient. It’s this kind of stuff that tells me we are governed by children. “Nuh uh. Can’t do that. I’m on base. Na-na-na-boo-boo.”
Whom among you has the power to censor the censor!?
Edit: Also, where does this asshole get off? Congress doesn’t have the power? Let’s logic this out. Does congress have the power to pass laws? Do citizens have to obey laws? Are you a citizen? I can big brain this all day.
This guy is a used douche.
Expand and term-limit SCOTUS. This system is ridiculous
I mean term limits aren't going to fix the problem. They arguably may make them far worse. It then just becomes a job of tactically making sure you secure the election of the executive branch and senate. With senate being the most important since if senate sits on their hands you sort of get a "Scalia situation". Where there will just be an empty seat until you get executive and senate to agree on a candidate.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment.
Laughable with a republican congress.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›