d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Supreme Court Scandals
Prev13456710Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 1293Replies: 96Track Topic
Member
Posts: 22,435
Joined: Mar 3 2007
Gold: 106.11
#41
May 5 2023 12:57pm
Quote (thesnipa @ May 5 2023 11:54am)
i mean he already claimed he'd not care if this was Soros/RGB so really anything more is irrelevant.


Wise as always, you are.
Member
Posts: 92,943
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
#42
May 5 2023 01:12pm
Quote (Handcuffs @ May 5 2023 01:57pm)
Wise as always, you are.


my grandpa did always call me a wise guy, but to be fair he was an idiot.
Member
Posts: 19,228
Joined: Oct 23 2003
Gold: 7,104.95
#43
May 5 2023 01:43pm
Member
Posts: 54,089
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
#44
May 5 2023 01:57pm
Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ 5 May 2023 19:43)
Never miss an opportunity to both-sides eh?


From what I can tell, these allegations aren't fresh, the underlying (allegedly corrupt) behavior has been known for quite some time. So why did this stuff only become a political issue and make the news now?


Also, why did the three liberal justices join their six conservative colleagues in signing Roberts' response letter to Congress in which he basically told Congress to pound sand?
See here:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/9-supreme-court-justices-push-back-oversight-raises/story?id=98917921

This necessarily implies that one of two things must be true: either there is no systemic issue of corruption on the court, or there is indeed an issue and the three liberal judges deliberately sided with Thomas et al. to preserve a status quo which leaves the door wide open for corruption. How's that for bothsides-ism?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 5 2023 01:57pm
Member
Posts: 19,228
Joined: Oct 23 2003
Gold: 7,104.95
#45
May 5 2023 05:37pm
Member
Posts: 34,186
Joined: May 25 2007
Gold: 21.00
Warn: 10%
#46
May 5 2023 05:40pm
Quote (gnarjay @ May 5 2023 04:37pm)
https://i.imgur.com/t2quAiT.png


I guess you have your blinders on for Sotomayor

Sotomayor: 3 million

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/sotomayor-didnt-recuse-supreme-court-cases-publisher
Member
Posts: 19,228
Joined: Oct 23 2003
Gold: 7,104.95
#47
May 5 2023 05:47pm
Quote (El1te @ May 5 2023 04:40pm)
I guess you have your blinders on for Sotomayor

Sotomayor: 3 million

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/sotomayor-didnt-recuse-supreme-court-cases-publisher


that was a book deal, not a donation
Member
Posts: 19,228
Joined: Oct 23 2003
Gold: 7,104.95
#48
Jun 21 2023 12:27pm
it will be interesting to see how goom Shill and the other maga cult members try to spin this one

https://www.theguardian.com/law/live/2023/jun/21/samuel-alito-gifts-supreme-court-trump-biden-latest-news

Quote
Senior senators Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse threaten to step up supreme court ethics reform
Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee Dick Durbin of Illinois and Sheldon Whitehouse, chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights have announced a markup in the Senate Judiciary Committee on ethics reform legislation surrounding the supreme court:

“The Supreme Court is in an ethical crisis of its own making due to the acceptance of lavish gifts from parties with business before the Court that several Justices have not disclosed. The reputation and credibility of the Court are at stake. Chief Justice Roberts could resolve this today, but he has not acted.
“The highest court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards. But for too long that has been the case with the United States Supreme Court. That needs to change. That’s why when the Senate returns after the July 4th recess, the Senate Judiciary Committee will mark up Supreme Court ethics legislation.

“We hope that before that time, Chief Justice Roberts will take the lead and bring Supreme Court ethics in line with all other federal judges. But if the Court won’t act, then Congress must.”


This post was edited by gnarjay on Jun 21 2023 12:28pm
Member
Posts: 34,649
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 273.37
#49
Jun 21 2023 12:49pm
Quote (gnarjay @ May 5 2023 07:47pm)
that was a book deal, not a donation


Sotomayor was receiving millions of dollars from a publishing house involved in a case she then ruled on. By ProPublica's logic, this is a slam dunk case where she clearly have recused herself and corruption of astronomic proportions that she did not. Except of course ProPublica couldn't find time to mention it in their piece on Alito, although they did manage to bring up a long dead Scalia.
Member
Posts: 34,649
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 273.37
#50
Jun 21 2023 12:53pm
Quote (Handcuffs @ May 5 2023 02:53pm)
I am just so surprised that you think the Supreme Court not having ethical standards, particularly when lower federal courts/judges have such standards, is ideal. Truly baffling.


In a world where it's considered a matter of fact that politicians are for hire and Congress trades blatantly on provided information, does a hunting trip, plane flight, or book deal really measure up? They should tighten up their reporting requirements, and some of this controversy is on matters that have already been cleaned up as of today (which ProPublica is then applying retroactively). But as an independent branch of government, I'm very leery of the intentions of the other branches to "fix" problems that pale in comparison to their own.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev13456710Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact