Biden will announce Supreme Court reform plans next week

a reply to: frogs453

No laws were broken.
What the justices do in their spare time is nunya.
There’s nothing Biden can do about it.
Your actual problem with the scotus is that they know the law and you don’t which cause grief when they don’t rule the way you want.

The biggest problem is there is a justice who doesn’t know what a woman is.
Justices need to be rational, mature and intelligent human beings.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: network dude

I simply said changes are needed, by whatever process. As we were discussing these examples in the thread I felt it was an appropriate place to post the new info.

If you feel changes are not needed, cool, that's your opinion. You feel it's a "sides" thing. I don't. It's not my fault this came about because of a conservative judge still hiding things. I have the same opinion whatever judge it is.

actually, the SCOTUS isn't supposed to be partisan, they are supposed to interpret the COTUS with regard to laws and lawsuits. If things were as they should be, all decisions would be 9-0, because the COTUS is the law. But the reason I replied as I did, is that there is a mechanism to oust a sitting SCOTUS justice. Impeachment. It's a juris prudence process in which charges are levied, and a trial is held to see if the charges hold up. If they do, and the justice being impeached is found guilty, he/she can be removed. If Thomas has done something worthy of being removed, then someone should file articles of impeachment.

The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment. Has a Justice ever been impeached? The only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805.

l ink to source

a reply to: Vermilion

And you completely ignored I stated all judges. Nor did I say laws were broken.
Nor did I complain about their rulings.

Not sure why you're implying things that I clearly did not state.

a reply to: network dude

I'm not the one to determine if he should be impeached. That would take people to determine why he still won't accurately report and determine if the gifts influenced his decisions in cases. I have no idea.

Generally I think a judge should not get 20M or actually we're still learning how much because the judge won't actually tell us, and then make decisions that directly affect the gift givers interests. I've said that like 4x now. And again any judge. Why you're mad at me because it's Thomas makes no sense.

a reply to: frogs453

yeahbut none of that involved illegally obtained and illegally retained classified material did it?

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

There should certainly be limits on gifts and any judge should recuse themselves from cases representing the gift givers direct interests. For all judges. Doesn't seem unreasonable.

Has there been any direct cases that directly involved any conflicts with any Justices and their decisions that may or may not have been unconstitutional? 🍖

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Vermilion

And you completely ignored I stated all judges. Nor did I say laws were broken.
Nor did I complain about their rulings.

Not sure why you're implying things that I clearly did not state.

You’ve made it very clear from all your posts that you hate the court as it currently is, and their recent decisions.
What number of lib justices is the magic number for you to approve of the court?
What number of conservative justices?

a reply to: Vermilion

Please post where I've stated my hate. That's crazy that you can post a link to update a story, mention you think it should apply to all, not one side and still be accused of "hate". How could I have posted that in anyway more unbiased?

a reply to: xuenchen

There are 4 current cases. You can find the listing here

And previously here

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Vermilion

Please post where I've stated my hate.

I dunno dude, look through the Dobbs threads or something.

I appreciate the ethics standards for all judges.
I think it’s incredibly ironic that you’ll make a giant deal about how a justice that has a rich friend yet ignore a judge who blatantly broke the law and still did not recuse himself. MERCHAN
Justice Thomas broke no law nor ethics code.
MERCHAN broke the law by donating then refused to recuse.
And the libs want to pack the court with people who won’t or can’t even tell you what a woman is. 🤡
How’s that for ethics?

a reply to: Vermilion

I don't think you'll find any post where I argued for or against it for Merchan. And as Networkdude said, there is a process for judges and the Ethics board found he did not need to be recused over the 35.00 donation.

As I said, not for me to decide these things. I'm sorry my opinion offends you so much on this topic.

What I notice, is no one really brings forth an opinion on this situation, even generally. It's about me, "what a woman is" "classified docs" and a NY judge.

Crazy I've had to post 6x regarding what I "supposedly" think and do because I posted a link and an opinion. Are people OK? Like truly. 🤣

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Vermilion

I don't think you'll find any post where I argued for or against it for Merchan. And as Networkdude said, there is a process for judges and the Ethics board found he did not need to be recused over the 35.00 donation.

As I said, not for me to decide these things. I'm sorry my opinion offends you so much on this topic.

The rule says ZERO.
Zero.
Other lib judges say ok no biggie just means they are corrupt jerks too.
Can’t believe that you don’t see it. Or do you?

Normal people: He touched kids so there are consequences.
Libs: He only touched 35 kids, stop acting like it was a million, no big deal.
Normal people: Well the rule is zero.
Libs: No big deal.
Libs: That other guy has rich friends!!!! Get a rope.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: xuenchen

There are 4 current cases. You can find the listing here

And previously here

But have any past rulings been unconstitutional or obvious favoritism?

I'm looking for DIRECT examples not speculation (as in "could sway"). 😬

Your 2nd link is a 404.

Can we get some actual solid quotes?

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Vermilion

I don't think you'll find any post where I argued for or against it for Merchan. And as Networkdude said, there is a process for judges and the Ethics board found he did not need to be recused over the 35.00 donation.

As I said, not for me to decide these things. I'm sorry my opinion offends you so much on this topic.

What I notice, is no one really brings forth an opinion on this situation, even generally. It's about me, "what a woman is" "classified docs" and a NY judge.

Crazy I've had to post 6x regarding what I "supposedly" think and do because I posted a link and an opinion. Are people OK? Like truly. 🤣

It’s not about you.
It’s about packing and changing the court under a guise of an ethics code because some people are upset about not getting their way.
Meanwhile, they ignore all the other current examples of ethics and court rules being broken.
Term limits is also a hilarious red herring.

a reply to: Vermilion

I simply stated I believe a change is needed in regard to excessive gifts. I don't care if it's lower court or Scotus. I don't care if it's left or right. I stated it should be changed by the necessary body to change it. You don't agree, that's cool.

a reply to: xuenchen

Apologize for the bad link.

Forbes

Seems to work now. I can't say myself of course if his opinion on the gift giver swayed the way he interpreted he law. I'm not an attorney. Wouldn't the best thing to do is to recuse yourself from any case that could benefit a gift giver? I mean if they will still allow them to accept gifts worth millions. Easiest solution is no gifts or minimal amount, 200? 500? Don't think that's a big enough amount to risk your reputation.

a reply to: frogs453

No sense stabbing at shadows and inflating assumptions without solid examples. Making wild hyena changes to The Supreme Court could cause more damage than fixes. 😉

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

There should certainly be limits on gifts and any judge should recuse themselves from cases representing the gift givers direct interests. For all judges. Doesn't seem unreasonable.

And it is it your belief that this problem, real or perceived, exists only within the judicial branch?

originally posted by: frogs453
Why you're mad at me because it's Thomas makes no sense.

You really need to ditch the snowflake routine. You pretend you are thick skinned enough to romp through the (slightly muddy) waters of the political threads, but somehow you think I'm mad at you because I disagree with something you said. And I didn't even really disagree, I just pointed out that our system has checks and balances in it for a reason.

If someone in a position of power, who could only be removed by impeachment, did something verifiably wrong, I would think and hope that partisan politics would not play a part. But if the anger is because of partisan reasons, then you can expect your brand of politics to be the only one's beating that war drum.

There are three liberal justices, they all had to disclose their gifts, but amazingly enough you placed your cutoff just above the highest amount received by them. And that's fine, it's politics. But don't pretend it's some moral crusade, that's laughable.

And lighten the F up. You are a leftie. I and many others will likely disagree with you most of the time. Bring links, back up your stance, and you can either change minds, or at least feel like you won in your own mind. But remember where you are. You came here on your own, you know the company you are in. So to act surprised that someone called you out is silly. And I know you aren't Silly, that's the other leftie, but you are acting a little silly. Put on the big girl panties and make good arguments.

a reply to: network dude

My response to you was not stating you were angry. I even stated your response regarding letting those who have the authority in these matters to make the decision in one of my posts as I dont disagree.

I certainly never mind the back and forth. You and I do it all the time. Having to repeat the same thing 6x gets old. Having people make up stuff even after I've repeated myself 4x gets ridiculous. Especially as I made no accusations, screeched it was some sort of thing only the right will do, etc. And I happened to read the moderator thread about decorum and I'm trying to abide by it.

I also, said "easiest solution is no gifts". Then threw random low numbers in case someone would be offended I suggested no gifts. I don't think any change would affect the gifts people already got anyway, so seems moot to me.

Finally, I wasn't making an argument. I simply stated an opinion. I believe there should be no gifts and if there are any case before them that the gift giver has an interest in. A logical response would be, "I don't believe so and here's why". Then we could argue the merits of each of our opinions.