Okay you guys, all those walking ethics violations and corruption on the Supreme Court?
That all been resolved, it’s all behind us now.
All. Nine. Supreme. Court. Justices. Just. Signed. A. New. Statement. Stressing. Their. Commitment. To. Ethics. Principles!
“It’s okay, trust us, we really mean it! Nothing to see here!” (probably)
They signed a piece of paper, and told us all to fuck off at the same time. I bet they’re exhausted from all the thought, time, and effort they put into this!
A new statement signed by all nine Supreme Court justices stressing their commitment to ethics principles has come under immediate fire for failing to respond to recent calls for the court to adopt a binding code of conduct. https://t.co/4So8cTX1eC
— NBC News (@NBCNews) April 26, 2023
Supreme Court draws fire for ethics inaction
The court doubled down on its decision not to adopt a formal code of conduct, prompting a swift response from ethics experts.
A new statement signed by all nine Supreme Court justices stressing their commitment to ethics principles has come under immediate fire for failing to respond to recent calls for the court to adopt a binding code of conduct.
The statement was attached to a letter from Chief Justice John Roberts to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that was made public Tuesday, in which he declined an invitation to testify at a committee hearing about the court’s ethics rules.
The statement, which says the justices “reaffirm and restate” their commitment to ethical principles, falls short on several fronts, legal ethics experts said. Democratic lawmakers were also quick to criticize it.
Several experts faulted the court for doubling down on its decision not to adopt a formal code of conduct when public trust in the institution has plummeted after high-profile ethical concerns, as well as a public backlash to some of its rulings on hot-button issues like abortion and guns. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.
“It’s reflecting kind of a startling level of intransigence given the problems the court’s confronted,” said Charles Geyh, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, noting that public support for the court had plunged.
Read the whole thing.
Will my head explode before my entire body spontaneously combusts? The jury is still out on that.
FUCK THESE GUYS.
trollhattan
OJ is still looking for the real killer.
J R in WV
Mr Roberts needs to receive subpoenas from the DoJ and the Senate Committee, ones with dates and requirements. If he doesn’t show, OK, he gets to spend the rest of time in a cell until he complies. He won’t get to participate in SC deliberations at all, until he get out of contempt jail.
Perhaps this procedure will teach him about “No one is above the Law, least of all the members of the bar!” If not, he can stay Chief Justice as long as he likes, from his jail cell~!!~
Baud
@J R in WV:
That says it all.
ETA: Aw man, you edited.
sab
If we ever get ethics rules with teeth we would lose more than half the current court because they couldn’t afford to stay.
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
The only way to be sure you never violate ethical standards is to not have ethical standards.
Tony Jay
“We are totally committed to the highest ethical standards.”
“So you’ll agree to abide by a strict code of conduct?”
“LOL. No way!”
WaterGirl
@The Kropenhagen Interpretation: Well, that’s a cute phrase, but we’re not talking about small potatoes here.
We’re talking about a total lack of ethics, total disregard for the rule of law, and being fucking purchased by rich guys.
J R in WV
@Tony Jay:
Well said, Tony Jay !!!
Juju
What a coincidence. I just signed a commitment to my own ethics principles. I hope everyone appreciates my effort.
karen marie
The three “liberal” judges seem to be less “liberal” than one would like.
MattF
But, do they pinkie promise?
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
Or, as we refer to the confluence of those traits in America, authority.
Sorry, but if I thought keeping a serious demeanor about this would do anything to help, I’d be very serious, indeed.
WaterGirl
Some good news to help temper my rage.
So he testified for 7 hours today – Is it fair to presume this is related to Trump’s emergency motion to block Pence from testifying being DENIED?
Albatrossity
I, for one, welcome our new ethical overlords.
Baud
@WaterGirl:
Ooh. I hadn’t heard about it.
Suzanne
Man, that’s some real skill there.
Tony Jay
@J R in WV:
I’m pretty sure the original intent of the Founders was for Congress to police the fuck out of those guys. Someone should look into that theory and thwock the Shameless Six upside their empty heads with it until they begin, continue and conclude the process of fucking the fuck off.
C Stars
Did you hear? TFG committed to ethical principals too! All good then.
David 🌈 ☘The Establishment☘🌈 Koch
@WaterGirl: I wonder how many flies landed on Pence’s head during the testimony? 🤔
Kay
Oh I concur. Yes indeedy.
trollhattan
@WaterGirl: Jesus wept, seven hours of Mike Pence? How often did they need to wake the panel?
karen marie
@Kay: Oh, I don’t know. I don’t find it startling in the least. I would have been surprised had they agreed to be held to any ethics standard.
FastEdD
Mr. Roberts declines to testify before the US Senate.
Hey, I decline to pay taxes! I decline to go to the dentist! See where that gets me!
I decline to wear pants! I can decline to do a lot of things, but I still have to do them. Whatta maroon.
Scout211
Why so sad? Lisa Murkowski and Angus King introduced a bill in the senate! It’s bipartisan! It will require the Supreme Court to adopt an ethics code within a year. The problem is solved! These people mean business!
Just don’t read the fine print . . .
First, it has to get through the judicial committee (no Feinstein)
And then a floor vote. Here’s how the turtle stands:
karen marie
@Tony Jay: All nine “justices” signed. All nine need to be thwocked upside the head.
Odie Hugh Manatee
I saw a conversation between two rich Ruzzian guys lamenting the war that Pootin is waging and the detrimental effects it is having on Ruzzian society. I mention this because one of them said something to the effect of ‘a country cannot survive if all it is about is money and keeping one group in power‘. The Ruzzians are waking up and our nutjobs keep telling us to go back to sleep. Fuck Roberts and HIS court.
Why the fuck did the three liberal justices sign on to this foolish bullshit?
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
What does the Supreme Court care about specifics or precise language?
Now, imagine they hadn’t signed, what would the narrative be then?
brendancalling
Showering themselves in glory!
The shower is a golden shower. Fuck these crooks.
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
@brendancalling: Don’t denigrate a perfectly valid sex act like that.
Kay
@FastEdD:
Roberts wrote that they “subscribe” to the ethics standards – could not bring himself to write that they would comply with them.
Sometimes I dislike Roberts the most out of the far Right justices because he’s the most weasely. Weasel-like.
Baud
@The Kropenhagen Interpretation:
I think Trump already ruined it for everyone.
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
What are these standards? Do we get to know?
trollhattan
I’m legit surprised/disappointed and hope that their concurrence came at a price measured in conservative flesh-pounds.
TriassicSands
Once again, Roberts fails miserably at a) being Chief Justice, b) being a Justice of the SCOTUS, understanding anything at all about ethics and the appearance of corruption, and c) being even remotely ethical himself.
I’m sure everyone else is just as impressed with Roberts as I am.
It goes without saying that everyone is overwhelmingly impressed with Clarence Thomas’ willingness to sign a meaningless statement that does absolutely nothing to get him to be
any more ethicalany less corrupt than he has been at any and every point in his career both before and after joining the Court. He first came to our notice as a man who sexually harasses female co-workers. Now, we know him as a dishonest, agenda-driven, ultra-right-wing, theocratic crook. What’s not to like?The one thing I wouldn’t accuse Thomas of is selling his votes. His votes were fixed the day he took his seat on the Supreme Court. He knows how he is going to vote on every case before oral arguments and no amount of money would ever get him to stray from his path of throwing the US back to the 18th century and getting even with liberals and Democrats every chance he gets.
hueyplong
Here’s hoping Trump found out about Pence testifying about the same time we did.
trollhattan
WaterGirl
@trollhattan: Well, I take your point. But if Pence is asked about some juicy stuff, and about the efforts to kill him on Jan 6, even Pence might be riveting?
WaterGirl
@Scout211: Sen. Whitehouse needs to be made head of the Senate Judiciary committee, like YESTERDAY.
WaterGirl
@karen marie: I’m pissed at the 3 good ones for going along with this.
They should have only agreed to sign if they could append public signing statements about why this is not enough.
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
@TriassicSands:
It just occurred to me another way the gifts may be corrupting. Even if judges don’t vote differently, such perks of office may convince them to keep the office longer than they may otherwise have.
New Deal democrat
I suspect the Supreme Court would strike down on a separation of powers basis any law that enacted a mandatory code of ethics for the Justices.
There is an easy workaround to this, The Constitution says Justices hold their offices “on good behavior.” Congress could pass by resolution under their organizing resolutions, definitions of violations of “good behavior” which would give rise to mandatory Impeachment inquiries by the House Judiciary Committee, which would be given subpoena power to assist in those inquiries.
Even though conviction by the Senate is almost a dead letter, if the Inquiry found likely criminal behavior, Justices would have to weigh partaking of their duties from a jail cell vs. resignation.
Another Scott
Maybe he’s stressed because he and all the rest realize that the letter is BS. (Or maybe he just doesn’t care about his signature any more.)
(via nycsouthpaw)
Cheers,
Scott.
Tony Jay
@karen marie:
If the statement is worded as each Justice individually confirming their adherence to ethical principles, then I’d expect the Three Amigos to sign it and mean it.
If it’s worded as the Supreme Court as a body affirming their collective adherence to ethical principles, then yes, get thwacking.
trollhattan
@WaterGirl: This is why I lost my seat on Senate Judiciary–too little imagination. Since he has a personality that spans A to B, I can’t imagine spending ten minutes with the mook, but maybe they gave him milk and cookies and he opened up.
Was Mother there?
delphinium
@hueyplong:
Better send more ketchup to Florida ASAP.
JPL
Imagine if you will a time when Ed Sullivan said Ladies and Gentlemen, The Roberts Court. Now imagine it replaying in your head all day long.
New Deal democrat
@Tony Jay: I actually read a lengthy tome on Congressional powers last year. The book made clear that the powers of the US Congress were practically copied from the historical record of the UK’s Parliament, which among other things had been known to arrest the King’s judges to order their appearance before the Parliament, and find them in contempt of the King in Parliament if they resisted.
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
To be fair to the Roberts Court, ethical concerns in government are every bit as much a dead concern as racism…
WaterGirl
@trollhattan: No matter what he said in his testimony, my money is still on him being a self-righteous prig.
I’m sure Mother propped him up before he started testifying.
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
I have a hard time believing those two would engage in such activity in public or even without a sheet blocking their views of one another.
Xavier
They’re committed to ethics principles! This time they really mean it!
BeautifulPlumage
Yeah no, I can’t anymore. Fuck em all, but especially Roberts
SpaceUnit
I’ve made a few career mistakes over the years, but at least I didn’t become an expert in US judicial ethics
ETA: Or major in business ethics.
Kay
@The Kropenhagen Interpretation:
Sure. They put them out in the letter. They say they are voluntarily complying with most of the ethics rules that bind all the other federal judges, with a huge exception for recusals. But reading the letter (which includes some of the rules) you’ll immediately see they aren’t complying, because Thomas didn’t. They’re just not making any attempt to address the Thomas issue other than a sort of vague reference about how complicated the rules are- I just don’t really find “the rules are too complicated!” a good excuse for such fancy lawyers. Jesus Christ. How about they hire a competent lawyer to read the rules for them? I feel like they had a lot of options here other than “I’ll just fill this out in crayon and hope no one notices”.
Baud
@Kay:
Expanding the court would help with the recusal issue.
Redshift
@TriassicSands:
From what I’ve heard listening to smart prosecutors, “I would have done it anyway” doesn’t get you off the hook for bribery, because proving the crime doesn’t require that the bribe is your only motivation, just part of it. That’s also the reason why real ethics codes for government officials require that they can’t accept gifts, not that they can’t do favors for people who give them gifts.
tl;dr that doesn’t make Thomas any less corrupt.
Ruckus
@Tony Jay:
The US government was set up to look like it was for the “people,” all the while protecting the privileged/monied folks. The current day rethuglican party is what’s left of that, with the knowledge that making everyone equal and under the same rules and laws will seriously bring equality to the entire country, and they can not abide that whatsofuckingever. Most citizens of this country do not know that the word everyone means ALL OF US. From the not so supreme court to the lowest bum sleeping on the street. And until we get there this country is not living up to the concept of why it was created but to the concept of the richy rich, who were among those that wrote the original rules and slanted it, sort of surreptitiously towards the richy rich, who mostly were land owners. Today the richy rich make SFB look like the looser he is, because his billions are not a lot in number, and even far less in spendable currency, which is why he lied about his wealth for decades.
Kay
@The Kropenhagen Interpretation:
I am a lawyer yet I have hired a lawyer. Surely Clarence Thomas could do the same.
There is no excuse. If they don’t know how to comply they can hire someone to help them.
Percysowner
I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall in the room where the liberal justices decided to sign on to this. I suspect it was partly based on the idea that they KNOW their coworkers and can’t believe they would do anything wrong, which happens a lot in companies. I also suspect they are worried that they will be scrutinized even if they do nothing wrong if too much is made of this. They also may believe they are protecting the honor of the Supreme Court, and adhering to the separation of powers. People can talk themselves into a LOT when it comes to people they know and like(?).
They could all be corrupt, although I really, really hope not.
Geminid
Game on in the Mountain State!
West Virginia Governor Jim Justice announced today that he is running for Joe Manchin’s Senate seat. Senators Shelly Moore Capito and Lindsay Graham attended the event held at Justice’s Greenbriar resort. Republican Senate Campaign Commitee Chairman Steve Daines has also endorsed the 72 year old Justice, who will face Club for Growth-endorsed Rep. Alex Mooney in the primary.
Anticipating Justice’s announcement, Manchin released a statement this morning emphasizing that for now he is “laser focused” on advancing vital legislation in the interests of West Virginians, but “Make no mistake…I will win any race I enter.”
From AP.
NotMax
This comes a week after the all too the similar post-settlement statement from Fox touting its “commitment to the highest journalistic standards.”
EarthWindFire
Like ethics standards is a new magazine. You’re right, Kay, it’s totally meaningless.
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
Sorry, failure to read is why I shouldn’t post on the go. One reason.
How does this get enforced for other federal judges?
EarthWindFire
@Geminid: Make no mistake…I will win any race I enter…Sounds like Manchin’s running for governor. What do you think?
patrick II
@The Kropenhagen Interpretation:
That is not being “fair” to the Supreme Court, it is excusing them for existing in an environment in which they very much helped create.
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
@patrick II: That was meant as deliberately ironic. Neither racism nor government corruption is a dead concern.
I was referencing their VRA decision.
SpaceUnit
@EarthWindFire:
Manchin was governor before.
NotMax
@WaterGirl
Oh, to be a fly on the
wallgelled coif.//
EarthWindFire
@SpaceUnit: Does that mean he can’t run again?
Kay
@Baud:
Right. I think Roberts has a point on recusal. The SCOTUS is unique there.
JPL
I imagine that I’ll win any race that I’ll enter, also.
Not going to enter though.
Geminid
@EarthWindFire: I think Manchin will run for another Senate term if he runs for anything, but I have seen speculation that he might run for Governor. I’m not sure why he would, though.
SpaceUnit
@EarthWindFire:
I’m actually not sure. But I suspect he’d probably just retire.
Baud
@Kay:
Bar all financial conflicts, so there will almost never be a reason to recuse.
geg6
@Tony Jay:
Exactly. It’s fucking infuriating garbage and the Dem appointed justices should be ashamed of themselves for associating themselves with that bit of rancid garbage.
Burnspbesq
Supremes are like the French knights.
”Now go’way, or I shall taunt you a second time.”
Kay
Just as an ordinary lawyer I think lawyers who do this kind of elaborate overthinking of ethics are on the wrong track. On dangerous ground. If Justice Thomas really “asked colleagues” about the lavish gifts he was accepting and not reporting just the fact that he’s asking should tell him something.
I sort of despair reading the response from Roberts. Come on. This isn’t that goddamned hard. This isn’t an exam question. It’s not a logic puzzle. It’s a situation where basic adherence to honesty and fairness should be enough of a guide. It is NOT HARD to stay on the right side of lawyer ethics rules and do not let these weasels convince you it is.
Once again we’re in a situation where we don’t need extraordinarily SMART people- what we need are ordinarily GOOD people.
Ksmiami
@brendancalling: torches and pitchforks are really starting to look good.
delphinium
@Percysowner:
Except it has already been shown that Thomas (at least) has done wrong/unethical things for years now.
And the “honor of the SC” is going downhill faster than an Olympic bobsled team at this point and the Liberal judges signing on to this won’t stop that.
Kay
It really does often remind me of child raising. These are excuses. These people can do better than this.
eclare
@Kay: I’m a CPA and have worked in corporate tax a long time. Once a year we are required to take an ethics course covering things like insider trading, collusion, etc and check off online that we took the course and have/will adhere to the rules. Like you said, not that hard. If you have to ask…
Roger Moore
@TriassicSands:
This shows again who Roberts really is. He’s better at playing the PR game than the more openly partisan justices, but he is absolutely committed to letting Republicans get their way.
Burnspbesq
@eclare:
You haven’t lived until you’ve had to tell a spouse that he/she has to sell one of the best-performing stocks in his/her portfolio because it just became an audit client of the firm you work for.
trollhattan
@Geminid:
Sigh. Anybody’s mama>Joe Manchin>any WV Republican.
And here we are. Does Joe know what a “laser” is?
Ruckus
@Kay:
“I’ll just fill this out in crayon and hope no one notices”.
Now that is an apt description of most of our current SC.
eclare
@Burnspbesq: Hahaha…luckily I was not married when I was in public.
Sure Lurkalot
More than disgusted that Durbin continues to honor blue slips and our 3 liberal justices signed on to that meaningless POS statement.
At some point, we deserve the corrupt government we won’t, can’t or don’t hold to account.
geg6
@eclare:
I work at a university and we are required to have ethics and university values training completed every year. It’s not difficult. And then I follow those ethics and principles on the job. Again, not difficult. If I don’t, I may be fired. Not sure why that’s so hard for well educated professionals on the highest court in the land to manage.
Gary K
@WaterGirl: I love the fact that I had to ask “Which grand jury?”
Roger Moore
@Kay:
I don’t like “the rules are too complicated” in general. It’s an incredibly lame excuse for why the rich and powerful are allowed to flout the rules without consequences. It’s the exact opposite of the way things should work. The Supreme Court should be held to stricter standards than the rest of us, not to weaker ones.
Cameron
When asked which part of the ethics agreement he felt was most important, Justice Alito responded: “These basic principles – person, man, woman, camera, TV. The public could ask no more.”
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
@Roger Moore: So are the rules less complicated for us commonfolk or are we just expected to know them intuitively with our superior common sense?
Gary K
@karen marie: I really want to thwock Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson extra hard. Why in the world would they contribute to enabling a coverup of the ethical stench from their right-wing colleagues?
cmorenc
Roberts knows that any ethical requirements for SCOTUS justices with teeth would at the very least require him to lean hard on Thomas to resign – even though Thomas would probably refuse to do so, 1) if he did, Biden would get to nominate his replacement, thinning the RW majority’ to a single vote; 2) there may be other RW justices with potentially disqualifying ethical skeletons in their closet – see Gorsuch, whose undisclosed Colorado land sale to a buyer with business before the court is equal to the speaker fees conflict that forced Fortas off the court in 1968.
Another Scott
Meanwhile, …
KyivIndependent.com:
VVP should just release a letter saying that he, of course, “subscribes to ethics principles and practices” – that would make it all go away.
Cheers,
Scott.
Chris Johnson
@Percysowner: One possibility is that they know it’s an escalation that can’t possibly avoid provoking a response.
If the liberal judges believe in the Supreme Court, they’ll want it fixed. Quickest way to do that is to establish conclusively that it’s broken and must be fixed. They might be intentionally helping to wave the red flag, and being quiet about their certainty that it will lead to consequences for the Court.
I would call that clever politicking.
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
@Gary K: I still think it would have turned into a giant scandal if they didn’t sign on. Remember the media environment we’re working in.
Gary K
@The Kropenhagen Interpretation:
“The way to stop having ethical concerns about the Supreme Court is to stop having ethical concerns about the Supreme Court.”
WaterGirl
@Gary K: It’s even worse than that. They said “federal” grand jury, but there are even two of those!
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
@Gary K: I have deep concern. That and $3 will get me a cup of coffee. So I point and laugh. Sue me.
I can post a picture of my furrowed brow if you like.
delphinium
@geg6:
Yep, I do contract work in the pharmaceutical industry-all kinds of yearly ethics/values training. And of course, have to declare any potential conflicts of interest (owing certain stocks, etc).
Gary K
@Geminid: So he wants to go from Governor Justice to Senator Justice. You know the last step in this progression, right? Even so, he’d be an improvement on Thomas.
cmorenc
As to “the rules would be too complicated” excuse – every in every US jurisdiction are bound by codes of Ethics, especially regarding avoidance of conflicts of interest, the violation of which can result in suspension of one’ law license or outright disbarment. So why are those requirements too unrealistically strict for SCOTUS justices?
delphinium
@Another Scott:
LOL!
Gvg
I don’t the liberals could refuse to sign. I do think they can say more is needed. And they can set a conspicuous better example such as refusing gifts, reporting offers of gifts,and recusing when they have a conflict. Of course in their place i would long since have put investments in some sort of large averaged fund managed by some neutral party and stayed out of it.
Roger Moore
@Kay:
100%. One of the principles my employer mentions in their ethics training is the feel test. If something doesn’t feel right, you should trust your instinct and not do it.
Another way of saying this is that you should err on the side of caution. If you aren’t sure if something is ethically OK, don’t do it. If you aren’t sure if something absolutely must be reported, report it anyway. Nobody will criticize you for going above and beyond the ethics rules. When you have to start asking a lawyer what you can and can’t get away with, you know you’re cutting it too close.
Gary K
@WaterGirl:
It’s even better than that!
WaterGirl
Whatever happened to no just impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety?
Scout211
My guess is that they likely all decided to stick together to form a wall of protection against any and all threats to impeach or have any one of them them removed.
They have to know the aggressive political climate we are in. State Houses removing the members they don’t like, Governors removing public employees they don’t agree with. etc. To protect the court (and themselves) they are backing each other up.
Think about it. Any one of the three liberal judges could easily become be targets of a President Trump or DeSantis, for no other reason than they don’t like their rulings, using made up ethics violations or some made up violation of decorum. If we don’t keep at least one branch of the legislature in the Dems hands, that could happen.
As much as we all know that Thomas violated ethics (over and over) I can see why they don’t want to open up an investigation. I think it’s wrong. But I can imagine what their thinking is for this coverup and private wall of protection.
If that is a an accurate way to look at it, I just hope that they WILL monitor his behavior, in private.
WaterGirl
@Gary K: That works, too!
Especially since you loved the fact…
JPL
OT I haven’t read the comments yet but just in case you haven’t seen Joe welcoming the bring your children to work day I bring you this.
Baud
@WaterGirl:
It all got used up for fake allegations against Hillary Clinton.
Roger Moore
@The Kropenhagen Interpretation:
It’s not necessarily the rules that are more complicated for the rich and powerful; it’s the situations. I’ve honestly never had to worry about most of the ethics rules for my position because I’ve just never been in a situation where they applied. Nobody is trying to bribe me, because I’m not important enough to bribe. And, sadly, nobody is offering me free vacations using his private plane and yacht.
eclare
@Roger Moore: We called it the smell test, same thing.
Baud
@JPL:
Haha. Bunch of mini me’s.
JPL
@Baud: so funny. The proud papas were watching their kiddos and not Joe.
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
@Roger Moore: The stakes may be lower, but most of us face ethical questions sometimes. A lot of those factor into the habits that govern our day-to-day lives and we probably don’t give them much thought
I’ve been in a position to be bribed as part of my retail work. It was something dumb. And I refused. But they tried
Hell, I’m having an ethical debate with myself right now about what details I can share.
eclare
@JPL: I saw some of it, so cute! I both can and can’t believe Joe calls his six grandchildren every day. Where does he find the time?
danielx
“It’s reflecting kind of a startling level of
intransigencearrogance given the problems the court’s confronted,”Fixed.
brantl
@David 🌈 ☘The Establishment☘🌈 Koch: “All of ‘em, Katy.”
Roger Moore
@eclare:
I think Kay’s point is the key, though. If you’re asking a lawyer for advice about whether something is ethically OK, it is by definition ethically questionable. That’s not what we want on the Supreme Court. The justices should be staying away from anything that’s even questionable. I don’t find it at all reassuring that a justice decided everything was fine after consulting with an ethics expert; I want a justice who doesn’t need advice because everything they’re doing is so clearly OK.
JPL
@eclare: It doesn’t surprise me at all. It is who he is.
I sent the clip to my son and he responded that is freaking awesome.
sab
The justices aren’t supposed to make speeches at partisan venues. It is right there in the letter rhey signed.So the acceptable approach now is it is okay to do it as long as there is an enforced news blackout. Scalia at the Cleveland City Club. Barrett at the McConnell Center.
Baud
@sab:
Partisan usually means political party events. Not ideological.
ETA: Scalia isn’t making too many speeches these days.
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
I don’t know. Are there jobs in hell? Cuz when I get there, that would be an excellent way to employ Scalia.
Jackie
@JPL: Those kids! So stink’n cute!🥰
Our future Secret Agents😊
sab
@The Kropenhagen Interpretation: Yes. Refusing to sign something that says that I subscribe to ethics rules could be interpreted to mean I don’t follow ethics rules.
The document does lay out ethics rules they supposedly follow. I think that is useful to do right now, to refresh all our memories about the rules they claim to be following.
sab
@Baud: Those rules were around when he was. These rules aren’t new. We just seem to have forgotten them because they have no teeth.
ETA And why the news blackouts if what they are saying is so proper.
JPL
@Jackie: We are in good hands.
Baud
@sab:
I think the news blackout is just the right wingers and it’s because they think the media is liberal.
A bigger problem than the corruption is that the right wing justices have drunk the Kool aid when it comes to their views on liberals and Democrats.
pajaro
The three Justices nominated by Democratic presidents also said they hadn’t leaked the draft opinion in Dobbs. during that investigation. They didn’t say that the leak investigation was adequate or that the other Justices could be trusted. I read the statement they signed similarly, as an explanation of the rules and the expectations that are assumed to exist, and they said they comply. I don’t think they were warranting the conduct of the other Justices, and it’s also not easy to see how they could easily have refused to sign.
It was Roberts who used the statements in the same way he used the sham investigation in Dobbs: “see they’ve all said they didn’t break the rules; there’s nothing to see here.”
James E Powell
@karen marie:
They are elite & the number one job of every elite is to protect their elite status.
danielx
Moderation? Wtf?
West of the Rockies
Not sure it’s been mentioned, but had the libs not signed, that would be the lead and twisted story. “What are they hiding?”
Jackie
🤦🏼♀️
During a hearing, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) made a bizarre claim while opposing the idea of climate mitigation programs: Nobody needs these programs because taxes weren’t necessary to make the glaciers melt during the previous glacial maximum in the Pleistocene epoch.
The clip was flagged by Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce on Thursday afternoon.
“People are not affecting climate change,” said Greene. “You’re going to tell me that back in the Ice Age, how much taxes did people pay, and how many changes did governments make to melt the ice? The climate is going to continue to change.”
Source is the link embedded in the article – which is paywalled.
eclare
@Jackie: Reading that made my brain hurt.
WaterGirl
@Baud: No shit.
This is fucked up.
WaterGirl
@danielx: You went into moderation because you had an extra vowel in “yahoo”
Gravenstone
The fact that six of them were not summarily struck down by lightning clearly refutes to presence of a divine power.
WaterGirl
@danielx: You have an extra vowel in “yahoo” in your email address. So you’ll need to fix that and post another comment, and then you’ll be back to normal. I fixed the previous one and I will fix this one, but it will keep happening until you correct it and then post again.
The Kropenhagen Interpretation
@WaterGirl: He’s spelling it like the old commercials…
oatler
They’re attempting to redefine “Nazism” and it’s gone to the Bell Curve.
https://ricochet.com/1439754/what-puts-nazism-on-the-right/#comments
J R in WV
@Roger Moore:
And this is SO sad !!!! I could really use a trip to the tropics on a fully air conditioned yacht right now. Well, in a couple more months when I finish up the Chemo course I’m on now….
Jackie
@eclare: Mine, too. I’d like to see the video 1) to see the expressions of those listening to her, and 2) to hear her pronounce Pleistocene epoch.
WaterGirl
@Jackie: @eclare: Can you imagine losing an election to someone like her?
“People thought that was better than me?”
Baud
@WaterGirl:
I expect anyone running against her understands what the voters in her district are like.
eclare
@Jackie: I too wondered how she made it through those words.
laura
There is simply no reason to accept power without accountability. None. Not from the Scotus, the Legislature, the Executive on down to our local governments.
Any branch that purports to establish that they are beyond accountability is a clear and present danger to our system of representative democracy.
NO POWER WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY!
MagdaInBlack
@Jackie: I just read that at Rawstory, and I couldn’t even find words to describe my awe at how proud she is of her ignorance.
How does that woman walk and breathe at the same time?
TriassicSands
@The Kropenhagen Interpretation:
That might be a possibility, but the general rule seems to be to hang on as long as is physically and mentally possible. That is true on both sides. RBG, Thurgood Marshall, and William O. Douglas all stayed much too long. When Marshall and Douglas got old — really, really old and long past their mental peaks (to the point where it was embarrassing) they still didn’t quit. One contributing factor could be how far along the political spectrum some justices sit. The three I mentioned were very liberal. Alito and Thomas are extremely radical. I expect both to cling to power as long as they can.
Some more moderate justices, like Souter, might find retirement more appealing.
In general, though, I think staying on is the norm. What better job exists?
TriassicSands
@sab:
Alito anywhere someone will listen.
Jackie
@WaterGirl: Apparently TFG was in NH today and claimed EV batteries throw dirt into the air. Obviously the MAGA party was given an education we non MAGAts were excluded from. I can’t even…🤷🏼♀️
kalakal
The British politician Tony Benn had 5 questions that he felt any public figure had to be able to answer
What power have you got?”
“Where did you get it from?”
“In whose interests do you use it?”
“To whom are you accountable?”
“How do we get rid of you?”
Jackie
@MagdaInBlack: Have you witnessed her actually walking and breathing at the same time?🤔
Ken
Open thread, so may I recommend “12 Outlandish Typos, Misprints, and Missteps from Respected Publications” over at cracked.com? Though the title is misleading; there are few typos or misprints here, just news sources being very, very wrong. From the NYT claiming that powered flight would take a million years to develop, to the NYT saying laptops are a fad, to the NYT reporting on how great Russia was under Stalin, to the NYT advising scientists that rockets are impossible, to the NYT saying that Hitler’s hatred of Jews was just a political stance and he didn’t mean it —
You know, I’m sensing something of a pattern here.
soareversor
Per the dead military thread below it’s always shocking to me how much conservatives don’t the the military. I remember when Santorum said people shouldn’t be having sex in the military and people went cross eyed at him. It’s a very odd place full of drunken horny guys and it’s never been, and never will be so paragon of conservative values. By nature it’s young, drunk, horny, and prone to a level of jackassery and offesenives that most civilians cannot wrap their mind around. Conservatives cannot fathom it. Shit I crawled through sewage and licked old guacamole off an admirals chest while he was in a wig and this was considered a right of passage, you get papers and stuff for it. That’s when I became a shell back and all the officers were dancing about in drag while we bowed to king Neptune.
The military is very masculine, that’s why it’s one insane homoerotic cultures on earth.
sdhays
@Ken: I hope Don Lemon speculating that the missing Malaysian flight might be on Mars made the cut.
TriassicSands
@Redshift:
I certainly didn’t say Thomas isn’t corrupt. He’s about as corrupt as it is possible to be.
TriassicSands
@Roger Moore:
They all have the same goals, but Roberts, as Chief Justice, will have his name on every decision. He’s dumb enough to think that if they just go a little slower, no one will notice. Well, maybe a lot of the media won’t notice, but a lot of us will.
J R in WV
@oatler:
Never heard of “richocet” before as a group of people, what a bunch of Nazis right there in our midst. A shame they can’t just accept the traditional definition of fascist and revel in it.
‘Cause they are sure right there in the Nazi sweet spot. Smack dab on top of that sweet spot!!
Miss Bianca
@soareversor: OMG, the Navy still does the Neptune ritual? Isn’t that to mark your first trip over the Antipodean line, or some such thing?
The Pale Scot
Signed, Epstein’s mother