The Lawfare Continues
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
I'd be fired for taking what he's taken.
Same.
@George-K said in The Lawfare Continues:
Wanna eliminate gifting in government? Legislate it.
Make it across the board. ALL government employees are prohibited from receiving gifts.
That brings up my question I asked at the top of this forum thread. Who can regulate the Supreme Court judges? I believe that when people in congress proposed some sort of "ethics statement" for the Supreme Court, it was rejected because that was not something Congress could do.
Heck, even the federal judges have a ethics code.
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vol02c-ch06.pdf@taiwan_girl said in The Lawfare Continues:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
I'd be fired for taking what he's taken.
Same.
@George-K said in The Lawfare Continues:
Wanna eliminate gifting in government? Legislate it.
Make it across the board. ALL government employees are prohibited from receiving gifts.
That brings up my question I asked at the top of this forum thread. Who can regulate the Supreme Court judges? I believe that when people in congress proposed some sort of "ethics statement" for the Supreme Court, it was rejected because that was not something Congress could do.
Heck, even the federal judges have a ethics code.
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vol02c-ch06.pdfDifferent rules, miss.
One of the smartest ladies I ever knew, I worked for. She was a stockbroker before she became a commodity trader. I caught her at the very twilight of her career, as she was working just to have something to do.
I'll never forget what she said more than once. Tell me the rules and I'll play to win.
In Thomas' case or Pelosi's? Or others? Change the rules.
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Lawfare Continues:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
I'd be fired for taking what he's taken.
Same.
@George-K said in The Lawfare Continues:
Wanna eliminate gifting in government? Legislate it.
Make it across the board. ALL government employees are prohibited from receiving gifts.
That brings up my question I asked at the top of this forum thread. Who can regulate the Supreme Court judges? I believe that when people in congress proposed some sort of "ethics statement" for the Supreme Court, it was rejected because that was not something Congress could do.
Heck, even the federal judges have a ethics code.
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vol02c-ch06.pdfDifferent rules, miss.
One of the smartest ladies I ever knew, I worked for. She was a stockbroker before she became a commodity trader. I caught her at the very twilight of her career, as she was working just to have something to do.
I'll never forget what she said more than once. Tell me the rules and I'll play to win.
In Thomas' case or Pelosi's? Or others? Change the rules.
@Jolly You make sense. But........ who can change the rules for the Supreme Court? Only themself?
-
@Jolly You make sense. But........ who can change the rules for the Supreme Court? Only themself?
@taiwan_girl said in The Lawfare Continues:
who can change the rules for the Supreme Court? Only themself?
Good question. I think you're right.
Who sets rules for Congress?
They, like SCOTUS are a COEQUAL branch of the government. Congressional oversight over the excutive brans, How was that established? Did the presidency say, "OK, we'll let you look into our shit?"
-
@Jolly You make sense. But........ who can change the rules for the Supreme Court? Only themself?
@taiwan_girl said in The Lawfare Continues:
@Jolly You make sense. But........ who can change the rules for the Supreme Court? Only themself?
A SCOTUS judge can be impeached. Only the Congress has the authority to do so.
Somebody recently tried to do so...
A Supreme Court Justice has never been impeached.
-
The discussion really shouldn't be about Clarence Thomas at all. It should be about removing the opportunity for corruption at the highest levels of government.
Based on the wealth of significant numbers of senior political figures, I'd say that was potentially bigger concern than voter fraud.
-
The discussion really shouldn't be about Clarence Thomas at all. It should be about removing the opportunity for corruption at the highest levels of government.
Based on the wealth of significant numbers of senior political figures, I'd say that was potentially bigger concern than voter fraud.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
The discussion really shouldn't be about Clarence Thomas at all. It should be about removing the opportunity for corruption at the highest levels of government.
Based on the wealth of significant numbers of senior political figures, I'd say that was potentially bigger concern than voter fraud.
No, but I'd say it ranks right up there...
-
Justice Elena Kagan called Thursday for an enforceable code of conduct for Supreme Court justices, saying that ethical rules the court adopted under pressure last year are flawed because they rely on the justices to police their own behavior.
“Rules usually have enforcement mechanisms attached to them and this one, this set of rules, does not,” Kagan told a judicial conference. She suggested that compliance could be overseen by a committee of respected lower-court judges appointed by the chief justice, which could decide when sanctions for violations should be imposed.
and
Kagan said having an enforceable ethics code would benefit the court’s reputation. “Sometimes people accuse us of misconduct where we haven’t engaged in misconduct,” she said. Having a credible compliance system wouldn’t only serve to enforce “the rules against people who have violated them but also [would protect] people who haven’t violated them,” she said.
-
Keagan is on to something. It provides an independent enforcement mechanism without separation of powers concerns.
-
Put the politics of this aside. I'd personally feel weird going on a trip with someone without paying my way, now add into the mix a highly public national office and I don't see how this would feel right.
Then again, I'm just a plebe. But I think this does smell icky to the regular person - even if it is all completely on the up and up.
-
Put the politics of this aside. I'd personally feel weird going on a trip with someone without paying my way, now add into the mix a highly public national office and I don't see how this would feel right.
Then again, I'm just a plebe. But I think this does smell icky to the regular person - even if it is all completely on the up and up.
@xenon said in The Lawfare Continues:
Put the politics of this aside. I'd personally feel weird going on a trip with someone without paying my way, now add into the mix a highly public national office and I don't see how this would feel right.
Then again, I'm just a plebe. But I think this does smell icky to the regular person - even if it is all completely on the up and up.
Agree 100%. Just kind of weird, and I a guessing that pretty much everyone on this forum board feel the same way.
-
It's not right, but it's a longstanding culture. It's not SCOTUs, it's everybody.
Shucks, Scalia used to duck hunt a few miles from my house. You think he paid for those hunting trips?
-
It's not right, but it's a longstanding culture. It's not SCOTUs, it's everybody.
Shucks, Scalia used to duck hunt a few miles from my house. You think he paid for those hunting trips?
@Jolly Have to change the culture. I don't know why if you are high in government, there becomes an "entitlement". And this is not a party issue. As you say, its everybody.
