Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

Burgold

By Burgold
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

China

China

Posted
Posted

Too bad the Dems don't have the balls to do anything.  They shouild at least launch an impeachment investigation and draft articles.  We know if would never get by the Senate because the GOP has no ethics, but it should be done regardless.  And they should definitely put together some ethics legislation.  They need to get off their asses and do something.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
Posted

@China

There is ethics legislation.  Sheldon Whitehouse introducted the "SCERT Act" in February.  He had a very nice opening statement in the hearing this week. 

 

The GOP argument that, "Congress can't have power over the Supreme Court" was laughable.  Furthermore them (and Alito) whining about the "attacks on public trust and confidence in the Court" are laughable. "Bush v. Gore" didn't undermine confidence in the Court?  It just so happened that 5 conservative judges issued a Catch-22 ruling the enabled their candidate to win. All of the Federalist Society loyal Justices acting like, "I don't have any agenda or preconceived notion to overturn Roe v. Wade... stare decisis is very important" and then the first chance they get... "hold my beer! while I wipe my rear with stare decisis".  You can bet they may make another run at Obamacare.  

 

Somehow they all look at the laws and determine that conservative policies are what the laws allow, but liberal policies are not (unless its pretty clear and not controversial).

 

There is a reason Justice Thomas is not resigning due to this and it is 100 percent political. Just like Kennedy's decision to resign for Trump. 

  • Like 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/05/samuel-alitos-self-serving-dobbs-leak-theory-is-back-in-the-news/

 

Samuel Alito's Self-Serving Dobbs Leak Theory Is Back In The News

 

Quote

Alito is back out talking his **** about the unprecedented leak.

 

A lot of it we’ve heard before — Alito has been pushing the victim narrative for a while. His theory is that the leak of the Dobbs decision before it was formalized could have incentivized assassins eager to stop the decision.


“Those of us who were thought to be in the majority, thought to have approved my draft opinion, were really targets of assassination,” he said. “It was rational for people to believe that they might be able to stop the decision in Dobbs by killing one of us.”

 

Nearly verbatim, this is what Alito said back in October. Because he cares a lot more about his own potential security risk — despite the ballooning security budget for the Court. But not at all about the rising mortality rate for childbirth that is directly traceable back to the Dobbs decision he penned.

 

So *the leak* was what caused people to want to kill you, not the fact that you wrote a completely political opinion taking away a right that has existed for five decades on purely religious grounds. Seems like the leak just made it happen a few months earlier.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, redskinsfanatic63 said:

why can,t we all just get along 😬 

Because maybe people are offended by a Supreme Court that rolls back voting rights (especially for minorities), threatens women's health, prevents gun legislation, takes unethical bribes and then pretends they are the victim? 

 

I welcome similar unethical information about the liberal justices too.

  • Like 3
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Fergasun said:

@China

There is ethics legislation.  Sheldon Whitehouse introducted the "SCERT Act" in February.  He had a very nice opening statement in the hearing this week. 

 

The GOP argument that, "Congress can't have power over the Supreme Court" was laughable.  Furthermore them (and Alito) whining about the "attacks on public trust and confidence in the Court" are laughable. "Bush v. Gore" didn't undermine confidence in the Court?  It just so happened that 5 conservative judges issued a Catch-22 ruling the enabled their candidate to win. All of the Federalist Society loyal Justices acting like, "I don't have any agenda or preconceived notion to overturn Roe v. Wade... stare decisis is very important" and then the first chance they get... "hold my beer! while I wipe my rear with stare decisis".  You can bet they may make another run at Obamacare.  

 

Somehow they all look at the laws and determine that conservative policies are what the laws allow, but liberal policies are not (unless its pretty clear and not controversial).

 

There is a reason Justice Thomas is not resigning due to this and it is 100 percent political. Just like Kennedy's decision to resign for Trump. 

 

That legislation was re-introduced in February.  It's now May.  Why hasn't it been put up for a vote?  The Dems are absolutely sitting on their hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Evil Genius

The Evil Genius

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

Libs destroyed by facts and logic

 

 

If only there were free schools Clarence's adopted great nephew could have been sent too...also he (Croelw) did not pay the tuition...he paid the first year of tuition...words...how do they work?

Edited by The Evil Genius
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, China said:

 

That legislation was re-introduced in February.  It's now May.  Why hasn't it been put up for a vote?  The Dems are absolutely sitting on their hands.

 

 

For a bill to come for a vote normally it has to be approved by a committe.  Unlikely the Republicabs are going to let it come out of committe.

 

And there is no way the Republican house is going to allow them to start impeachment preceedings.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

For a bill to come for a vote normally it has to be approved by a committe.  Unlikely the Republicabs are going to let it come out of committe.

 

And there is no way the Republican house is going to allow them to start impeachment preceedings.

 

Not sure the Republicans can prevent it from coming out of committee.  There are 21 members of the Senate Judiciary Committe and 11 are Democrats.  You just need a simple majority to get out of committee.

 

Here is today's Statement from the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair.  Basically he's showing Susan Collins levels of concern.  So I reiterate that the Democrats aren't pressing the issue hard enough.

 

Edit: It just occurred to me that Feinstein is on the Judiciary Committee and she's not available which takes away their majority.

Edited by China
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

A group of Democratic senators want to withhold $10 million in Supreme Court funding until it adopts a public code of ethics: report

 

A group of 15 Democratic Senators wants to withhold $10 million in Supreme Court funding until the high court institutes a public code of ethics, according to The Hill.

 

At the beginning of April, Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen — the chair of a subcommittee in charge of the Supreme Court's budget — suggested the court needed a code of ethics, adding that Congress needed to act. 

 

"It is unacceptable that the Supreme Court has exempted itself from the accountability that applies to all other members of our federal courts, and I believe Congress should act to remedy this problem," Van Hollen told the Washington Post.

 

Unmentioned in Van Hollen's statement to the Washington Post was that a group of senators wrote to Van Hollen's Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee just days prior, on March 31, requesting $10 million be shaved from the Supreme Court's budget until a public code of ethics was adopted.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Sounds good, but I'm pretty sure that's just pocket change for someone like Harlan Crow who'd be happy to help the justices out in a pinch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

The IRS should be involved with criminal charges for the Thomas couple. If it's good enough for Al Capone, it's good enough for them. Then prison and impeachment. 

We live in a timeline where any indictment or even conviction would get appealed to the Supreme Court and they would rule 5 to 3 that the executive enforcing Congressional laws against Supreme Court justices would raise and violate serious "separation of powers" issues.  

 

Since there would even be no reason for Thomas to feel shame at recusing it might even be 6-3 with Thomas writing a concurrence...  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...