2y ago

Supreme Court Ethics Bill Passes Committee over 100% Republican Opposition

www.nytimes.com Senate Panel Approves Supreme Court Ethics Bill With Dim Prospects

Republicans accused Democrats of trying to undermine the court with the measure and vowed to block it from advancing in the Senate, making it highly unlikely to become law.

Although I agree with this bill, the NYT calling it "strict new ethics rules" is a bit much. Reading the requirements in the bill itself, it struck me as legislating that SCOTUS justices do the bare ethical minimum required of most every other judge - in other words, it's the type of bill that shows up when an organization demonstrates that it is incapable of self-policing.

What's shocking is 100% opposition by Republicans to a bill requiring a Justice to recuse if a close family member receives a large gift from a litigant - literally, that's in the bill.

How is this controversial? Senator Graham says why - requiring the court to act ethically will "destroy" the court. He's saying, we don't care if justices are ethical so long as they're partisan.

Congress needs to step up here.

Politics @kbin.social

Col3814444 @kbin.social

2y ago

Senate Panel Approves Supreme Court Ethics Bill With Dim Prospects

www.nytimes.com /2023/07/20/us/politics/senate-supreme-court-ethics-rules.html

12 6

You're viewing a single thread.

60 comments

It's too bad we can't dig up any dirt on the liberal justices so that this could be a bi-partisan bill. Either the liberal justices are excellent at hiding their corruption or it's just the conservative judges who are taking these bribes. My money is on the latter.
- The GOP tried to "both sides" by pointing out the liberal justices took small, nomial fees and hotel stays when giving speeches to law students at colleges. Somehow it didnt line up to "a taking expensive vacation's with a billionaire donor in your party on their private jets when they have cases before the court (alito)" or "taking expensives vacations with a gop billionaree that also bought your moms home and has let her live in it rent free for decades (thomas)" or " your wife making millions from "consulting" at GOP think tanks (thomas/roberts)."
  So they shifted to "whatever. Its cool when our guys do it."
  
  Comparisons need not be fair. They just need to get it out there and it works. I don't know how many times I've been discussing politics IRL when someone says, "Yeah, but the liberals do it to! Look at this!"
  My favorite:
  "Are you seriously conflating protests over racial discrimination with a takeover of our nation's Capital in an attempt to overthrow the government?!"
  "They're the same."
  
  "Our side may have tried to violently overturn a fair election and install a fascist dictator in an insurrection that killed five people, but your side holds protests against racially-motivated police violence and some of those protests led to property damage, and that's where I draw the line!"
  
  Damn, you got that one right in the bullseye.
  
  The most serious thing I heard of was Sotomayor's staff intimating to universities bringing the Justice in to speak hadn't purchased enough copies of her book.
  Can't wait for the calls of "But her books!"
  
  My personal conspiracy theory is that Scalia died of a heart attack banging a hooker on that billionaire's ranch.
- "It's too bad" everyone is not corrupt?
  Also, the Republicans spent decades buying this court, and nothing - not even what you suggest - would make them put any constraints on it.
  
  i feel like their comment was largely tongue-in-cheek

60 comments