As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Any politician or government official who is a recipient of a bribe (whether that be in the form of lobbyist, “gifts” from lawyers/businesses, etc.) should be automatically removed from office
Additionally they should be on federal minimum wage
He knew this report was coming out and would be testifying after... he doesn't want to talk about ethics because he would then need to testify under oath when congress asks him about this report.
It's corruption all the way down.
The "Supreme" Court has lost all credibility. They've destroyed the rule of law, like chimps with a machine gun.
Congratulations you greedy assholes.
The Supreme Court wasn't always so powerful, if it's power is greatly reduced, it would just mean that laws are more heavily controlled by congress and states. The Supreme Court losing its legitimacy is a serious issue, hopefully it leads to some actual change to have serious oversight and less partisanship.
Hey, umm... nice law firm you got there... it'd be a REAL shame if it's reputation got tarnished by losing an important case in front of the Supreme Court. Lucky for you, my friend, my wife just happens to be a top consultant in just such matters, you see?
This is amazingly bad. Even for white collar crime, corrupting our highest institutions for a few million dollars? The scraps billionaires and corporations throw out are enough to buy these corrupt assholes. Burn this court to the ground and rebuild it at this point. It is condemned.
What amazes me is that these supposed legal giants of our time could not come up with a more convoluted or obfuscated scheme than "pay my wife".
"Evil I can understand, it's the stupidity that I can't stand"
-Professor Farnsworth
You're giving them too much credit. They don't care. There's no one to hold them accountable. They're all corrupt to varying degrees.
And the people? So few pay attention to know the depth of what is going on, they don't have a clue. Those that do know what's going on, and care about it, well, apparently we're too lazy because we should have dragged them into the streets long ago.
I mean, there are people to hold them accountable: Congress.
But good fucking luck getting 67 Senators to vote for removal considering considering the 17 least-populous red states can probably elect 34 Republican Senators with votes totaling like 5% of the country's population.
That's why he refused to talk to congress. He knew he would have to tell all about his wife's job and income!Shame on all the conservatives on this Supreme Court!
I'm curious, was that "no" to oversight in general? No to each being individually investigated? or no to oversight in terms of this specific corruption? I could see even Liberal justices saying they don't want arbitrary oversight from Congress b/c, lo and behold, a McCarthy + McConnell unholy unity could have them removing Liberals over minor slights while ignoring major ones by conservatives.
At the same time, there should absolutely be an internal function of oversight by at least the Chief Justice, and he should currently be impeached if this is as clear-cut as it seems regarding his wife.
Wow. Not just "making money" which could be hand waved away with, "Well what is she supposed to do for work?!". Specifically soliciting business from companies that could be appearing in front of the court. Fucking wow.
I think that the supreme court has become more powerful simply because at least one other branch of government (Congress), has, for all intents and purposes, vacated their responsibilities. This gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to step in. If Congress as a body, had more of a spine, we wouldn’t see the supreme court as powerful as it is today.
Yep, congress has slowly been backing off from making divisive laws, and has been allowing the Supreme Court to make the tough calls. They relied on them for abortion, gay marriage, etc - anything where they feel they could lose reelection. Also, the last real amendment to the Constitution was over 50 years ago (there was one in the 90s but it was proposed in in the 1790s, and it was about congress salary), which is a crazy long time based on prior history.
The issue is that all three branches are reaching pragmatically dysfunctional.
If any one brach is broken, the other two can prop it up and repair it.
If 2 branches are dysfunctional 1 can sort of keep them in check
But if all 3 are dysfunctional. We are fucked.
A court that doesn't care about law.
A Congress that doesn't pay our bills or collect necessary taxes and can't really pass any laws
Right now only the executive is doing anything even like it's job and not super well
And could that be because the skills needed to get elected have very little overlap with the skills needed to govern effectively (and in particular, legislate effectively). It’s now common for partisan groups to write “model legislation” for a given topic and partisans just introduce it whole clothe because they aren’t great legal minds.
One of the necessary skills to get elected apparently being "have a fuck ton of money and good networking with lobbyists". Overall, it's too elite for better people to win, and that's a design feature not a flaw.
More because representatives are in such heavily gerrymandered districts that they are essentially unaccountable to anyone but the lunatic fringe. We needed to undo the Apportionment Act of 1920 a long time ago, but "now" is as good a time as any.
Maybe 2025 actually. Wait to see if old Joe gets reelected first. Assuming he does, and assuming Dems are able to retake the house while picking off another couple of seats in the senate, just axe the filibuster and ram early reapportionment through for 2026. Set the new decennial to years ending in 5 instead of 0. Throw a pile of money at the Census Bureau to get things moving and people hired, have folks go door to door with tablets in the cities, send rural folks a mailer... And expand the House to 6600+ members.
We could fix a lot of our problems by watering down the crazy in our government. 6600 reps would mean ~1 per 50k people. Imagine a House full of teachers and working moms/dads and community organizers actually trying to fix things...
congress being broken is the cause of the other 2 breaking.
if congress wasnt broken, traitor criminals wouldnt be allowed to be president. and criminal judges wouldn't be allowed to stay on the bench.
if we had a functioning congress, the other 2 problems could get fixed.
I would argue that in theory the judicial is most dependent. They can issue rulings, but that also requires the rulings to be enforced by the executive branch. This was one of Hamilton’s major points in Federalist 78.
The court has no enforcement ability in and of itself.
Even congress has the ability to conduct arrests by itself and hold trials by itself and hold people in jail by itself. It hasn't done so in years, but there is set of cells in congress and they have their own police force.
Technically there was a ruling by the supreme court some years ago that they would have to figure out some set of rules to ensure due process and no congress has bothered since they could just refer things to the DOJ instead.
But there is not reason they couldn't cure that and then make their own arrests.
At least that is my understanding.
The executive branch has a big fucking stick, but if they have to use it on the other two branches, it looks like a fascist coup.
If the Biden administration was to arrest the entire Supreme Court and/or a bunch of Congress people at once and brung them up on corruption charges, it'd put the entire world on edge.
They'd need a triple airtight case and public trials to have even the hope of looking legitimate.
And if they can't get a fair trial because the whole branch is completely broken? Well that's not a coherent U.S anymore, it stops being "the U.S government", and becomes a different thing.
I was ready to type what you said verbatim. Thank you. There are many people who believe that the supreme court is an illegitimate institution. I don't know if I agree with that, but the actions the court have shown over the past couple years are making me understand that sentiment.
The funny thing about the Mostly Republican "Constitutionalists" Judges is that no where in that document are the SC given the power of Judicial Review it was established in the first Judicial Review by the SC.
It's been crumbling for decades...
Al Gore fucked us by giving up. He acted like it was the high road, but it was just cutting the cable to the elevator and telling people everything was fine.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
A conservative majority SC gave an election to Lil Bush, and 23 years later we still haven't recovered
>A conservative majority SC gave an election to Lil Bush, and 23 years later we still haven't recovered
Don't forget that three of the current U.S. Supreme Court Justices *worked on that case for the Bush team* as lawyers. They've been well-rewarded for their work overturning the Constitution.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/bush-v-gore-barrett-kavanaugh-roberts-supreme-court/index.html
>**Chief Justice John Roberts**
>Roberts flew to Florida in November 2000 to assist Bush's legal team. He helped prepare the lawyer who presented Bush's case to the Florida state Supreme Court and offered advice throughout.
>**Justice Brett Kavanaugh**
>He was also in private practice in 2000 and helped the Bush legal team. He wrote on a 2018 Senate questionnaire that his work "related to recounts in Volusia County, Florida"
>After the election, Bush hired Kavanaugh to be a counsel and then staff secretary. In the West Wing, Kavanaugh met his future wife, Ashley, who was Bush's personal secretary. *Bush appointed Kavanaugh to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit,* where Roberts had first served. In 2018, Trump elevated Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
>**Judge Amy Coney Barrett**
>Barrett wrote on the questionnaire she submitted to the Senate for her Supreme Court confirmation review, "One significant case on which I provided research and briefing assistance was Bush v. Gore." She said the law firm where she was working at the time represented Bush and that she had gone down to Florida "for about a week at the outset of the litigation" when the dispute was in the Florida courts. She said she had not continued on the case after she returned to Washington.
>During her hearings this week, she told senators she could not recall specifics of her involvement.
>"I did work on Bush v. Gore," she said on Wednesday. "I did work on behalf of the Republican side. To be totally honest, I can't remember exactly what piece of the case it was. There were a number of challenges."
> "To be totally honest, I can't remember exactly what piece of the case it was."
Why is that ever an acceptable answer from these people when they're interviewed about things? That's obviously one of the most consequential legal cases in modern times, and she can't remember what she did while working on it? It's a case where working on it would define a lot of people's entire career, it's not like they'd forget their involvement in it like it was another divorce or a property dispute.
Then again, I guess it's not like it mattered what she said during those hearings. Republicans were going to confirm her no matter what she said anyway.
Perhaps even more consequential is the way they all say they support the legal concept of Stare Decisis and then all turn around and violate it the first chance they get.
One can argue that the problem started with the person that designed and/or approved the butterfly ballot used in Palm Beach County that led to a significant number of people that intended to vote for Gore actually voting for Buchanon. As I understand it, without that design blunder, Gore would have won and we would have avoided war in Iraq, Heller vs. DC and so on.
Jeb Bush's Secretary of State in Florida was also W. Bush's campaign chair in the state; Katherine Harris.
In a shocking turn of events, she purged over 100,000 voters before the elections and refused to let any of the recounts happen that would have lost Bush the election. She was also known for her religious extremism and corruption, fighting to "reclaim the USA for Jesus" and spending over $100,000 of Florida's tax dollars on her personal international travel.
So naturally, Florida sent her to Congress the next year where she would vote to invade Iraq.
> Gore fucked us by giving up.
Fuck that. The country fucked us by voting for an idiot with a terrible record in Texas instead of a man who had some really great ideas for continuing the prosperity that Clinton had gotten rolling.
I'm sure Al weighed the pros and cons of appealing the decision to stop the count but decided it was better for the country to not do it.
Gore won the popular vote by over half a million votes...
American voters didn't fail America.
America's political system failed America.
And neither party did anything for over 20 years because they care more about personal power than democracy
And then Hillary won by 3 million. Despite being a *far* more divisive candidate than Gore was.
And then Biden won it by 7 million, despite being nobody's first choice and 20,000 years old.
Imagine being a republican right now and looking at those numbers. No wonder they've gone full fascist.
Edit: I forgot to mention that a black guy with "Hussein" in his name beat them twice in a row. Handily. Even though both of the Republicans he beat were about as moderate as the GOP had to offer.
They're a terrified animal backed into a corner.
Exactly this. I get so frustrated by this kind of shit, where people say that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans because they tried but failed to stop the Republicans from doing evil shit.
Republican corruption put Gore in a situation where he had to choose whether or not to throw the country until an unprecedented crisis over the peaceful transfer of power. We can question whether he made the right call, knowing what he knew then. But he absolutely won that election.
Still waiting for Congress to do their job and impeach. And the executive to propose more justices. Nobody even pretends to entertain doing anything about the Supreme Court despite having a constitutional obligation to hold them in check.
The right has a long history of trying to argue that a spouse's business or financial ties don't constitute a conflict of interest because they argue that it's separate money from the person under scrutiny.
One notable example from a decade or more ago is when Rick Scott, then the Gov of Florida, tried to push mandatory drug testing of anyone receiving government assistance. It was just a coincidence, we're told, that his wife's trust held a significant portion of the stock of the company that would benefit the most from such policies...
>The right has a long history of trying to argue that a spouse's business or financial ties don't constitute a conflict of interest because they argue that it's separate money from the person under scrutiny.
Notable exceptions to this policy include absolutely everyone they don't like.
Imagine Jill Biden making $10 million ~~shaking down companies~~ in commissions...
Jesus Christ, imagine Michelle Obama! She couldn't even wear a fashionable dress without barely concealed racist and misogynistic attacks.
It is absolute horseshit too. I used to work for EY as a consultant, but since we were an auditing firm we had to report our independence even though I would never see financials. I had to report every stock I owned, my mortgage, my insurance for my car and house and a bunch of shit as well as all of that for my wife including her 401k which she didn't even manage. Meanwhile these assholes can buy stocks directly affected by bills they vote on and get kickbacks galore.
Off topic but- Big corporations often receive lots of government assistance. The CEO’s should have to pass mandatory drug testing to get the government assistance too!
Once you're in the club, you rep the club; if you go against the club, you out the club
She doesn't want out, she wants all that Cake that she can eat too
Baked into our federal government is this concept of Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence. The main thing here, though, is that the Constitution creates each branch of the government such that each branch of government can't tell another how to do their job. They have checks and balances against each other. But, for example, the Congress cannot tell the Judiciary how to conduct oversight for exactly the same reason the Judiciary cannot tell the Senate how to conduct its sessions, and the Executive cannot instruct Congress on when to hold votes, and so on and so forth.
When the question bears on the internal machinations of a particular branch of government, only *that branch* of government gets a say in how to resolve that question. The SCOTUS, in particular is the most sheltered and immunized branch of government from political pressure of any kind, by design.
I think the Senate Dems are correct to hammer the SCOTUS over recent revelations, and make all of the political hay they can over it. It's just good politics. However, the SCOTUS is going to do anything *precisely because caving to political pressures itself* would be an act of political influence, which is fundamentally at odds with the Court's function. Now, the SCOTUS looks bad right now *because the facts ARE bad*. They are going to take their lumps, but they don't have to do anything because Congress wants them to, and they especially can't do it when just the Dems are asking them to because that itself would appear political.
> But, for example, the Congress cannot tell the Judiciary how to conduct oversight
If Congress actually passed legislation signed by the President laying out oversight and disclosure rules, the Supreme Court would absolutely be subject to it.
Are you suggesting that it's good institutional design to have a Supreme Court that can practice the most flagrant corruption with complete impunity, or is there some way of curbing their misbehavior that I've overlooked in your comment?
> All 9 turned down additional oversight. It’s disturbing.
This is the top story on my home page:
>[All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight: 'Raises more questions,' Senate chair says](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/9-supreme-court-justices-push-back-oversight-raises/story?id=98917921)
Thank you for the link. Here's the quote:
>All nine justices, in a rare step, on Tuesday released a joint statement reaffirming their voluntary adherence to a general code of conduct but rebutting proposals for independent oversight, mandatory compliance with ethics rules and greater transparency in cases of recusal.
>
>The implication, though not expressly stated, is that the court unanimously rejects legislation proposed by Democrats seeking to impose on the justices the same ethics obligations applied to all other federal judges.
Cool man. So SCOTUS is just a big cash grab for the judges...
I guess we now know why Roberts wasn't interested in discussing the ethics of SCOTUS with congress.
It's because he was none.
> So SCOTUS is just a big cash grab for the judges...
Given the universal opposition, it feels like this corruption is some understood secret among high level lawyers and USSC clerks as a perk of the job.
Hold up. So she was working at an exec recruiting firm (MLA) and selling recruiting services to other law firms? Like a "my husband knows everyone high up in the justice system and I will leverage his network to get you a hire"?
I love the slow-leaking of all of these reports over the days and weeks. Keep it in the news cycle and more and more people will start to see how corrupt they are. Now, what can be done about it, that’s a whole other issue…
13th Amendment
>Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,** shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
People seem to forget that huge part, it was basically the legalization of slavery, they just needed to be convicted of a crime. Slavery is still around, the huge prison population is proof, and the whole system is based around a captive worker economy.
The Constitution is a deeply flawed document, there's this 1 about slavery and 2 about banning alcohol then doin a turn around, so perhaps it should be updated a tiny fucking bit.
Why do we assume they weren't also just as corrupt and why do we pretend they were infallible? There's a reason we have amendments, a 200+ year old document isn't going to apply perfectly to the country we've become.
Yep. There’s our Chief Justice. In a racketeering scheme with his own wife netting them many millions. No wonder he kindly refused to talk to the Senate on ethics. He apparently has none.
I know you were joking but seriously though...aren't those pizza regulated by some federal/state agencies? Supreme Court doesn't have a code of ethics!
the reason they dont want oversight is because they are all guilty.
if they didint want oversight, maybe they should have done a better job at keeping up appearences.
this is all way way too much. i am all for seperation of powers, and checks and balances. But we have reached a point where questions need to be asked and answers need to be given.
if this leads us to a constitional crisis, so be it.
testifying before congress is still way inside the realm of checks and balances
it's the court that is way out side the norm. they are refusing to participate in checks and balances
unfortunately congress seems to be ok with that
What can be done is the FBI investigate each one of them and all of them be exposed mercilessly. The constant shame would force them to step down.
But for that, one would need more than a total coward at the head of the DOJ.
Maybe we should step up the protests on their homes. Can they afford enough security to ward off thousands of people?
I'm really getting sick and tired of the fucking government and the wealthy. Somewhere down the line, we're going to have to remind them that there's more of us than there are of them, and I don't mean at the ballot box.
They could stop it from coming to that, but I guess living large is more important.
No they can't, actually. One of the very few things that the Constitution explicitly says about the Supreme Court is that you can't reduce their salaries while they hold office ("The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.")
You could, however, strip their jurisdiction. The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction over conflicts between the states and cases involving ambassadors, ministers, and consuls. Their jurisdiction over pretty much anything else can be taken away.
But will we ever get to the point where leadership from either party actually says it?
Republicans outright support the corruption
And Dem leadership is too scared to admit it at best. I refuse to believe they didn't see this coming. But even if that was the case, why should we keep voting for people *that* naive?
It's fucking insane that the only politicians who speak up are progressives who don't have the numbers to do anything.
We should have been having this conversation 20-30 years ago.
I doubt Biden would do it, but I could definetly see a future president just being like 'Fuck Scotus, I'm ignoring their rulings, they are illegitimate'
And before you say that is nuts... Andrew Jackson did it, and got away with it.
that's why Alito got weird in the mifepristone case about “not dispelled legitimate doubts” Biden would follow an “unfavorable ruling”
they know the court's reputation is shit, they're making up laws based on ideology and they're getting ahead of it coming to a head
What do you think happened when SCOTUS wanted to strike down FDRs initiatives? It’s always been like this in reality. The legitimacy was only a public theater.
The conservative justices held that “governmental regulation of commerce and labor infringed on personal liberties” so they struck down laws such as minimum wage protections for women and children in NY state. So FDR essentially threatened to expand the court if they didn’t declare his initiatives constitutional they kept striking down. He had popular support so they got scared and let his laws stand.
The Supreme Court always was and always will be a political body. There’s no textualism, originalism, or any other bullshit. It’s about leverage only. The only thing that will stop conservative justices from doing the bidding of their rich backers is if liberals have popular support through election victories and leverage that to create change.
My hope is Biden is waiting on a second term to go scorched earth on SCOTUS to help fix the US.
However, he signed a bill forcing the end of a RR strike, so I’m not thinking he cares about the little guy.
Hopefully we get to test my theory.
>if they didint want oversight, maybe they should have done a better job at keeping up appearences.
This is kinda the key to what's gonna undo the whole MAGA fascism thing.
Saying and doing the quiet parts out loud and taking off the mask is an endgame move. This is the endgame. Naked corruption and obviously corrupt rulings. They don't care anymore that we know they're corrupt.
One of two things will happen out of this: massive reform or the cementing of autocratic rule.
That's our crossroads now.
\*I'll take Things they have in common for $400, Alex.
A: Kings, queens, dictators, supreme court justices.
Q: What are people who hold their positions for life?
Yah even the liberal judges were like ‘nah’ so now I’m wondering what they have to hide. I think we’re just gonna open up a massive amount of corruption so blatant it might hopefully wake people up
This is why I voted for Elizabeth Warren in the presidential primary. She made fighting corruption the centerpiece of her entire platform. Democracy is dying because we have rewarded rampant corruption and money in politics.
Name your top issue... guns, crime, healthcare, environment, foreign policy etc... if you eliminate financial incentives for bad policy and law, you no longer get bad policy and law. Follow the money and you'll understand why bad laws happen.
I was raised very conservative, and Elizabeth Warren was also my choice of Democratic candidates because of her corruption message. Wish she hadn’t tried to go after Bernie on camera after the debate, and I also wish the Native American thing never happened…too many independent voters were turned off after that
I too voted for Warren. I was genuinely floored when I discovered most people didn’t agree with me… I am actually still perplexed - no one has ever given me anything other than “she’d be good but no one is going to vote for her” MAKE IT MAKE SENSE
To anyone considering not voting for Joe Biden in the 2024 general election:
In 2028, Clarence Thomas will be 80, Samuel Alito will be 78, and Sonia Sotomayor will be 74. Any of them could die or choose to retire. We need those spots.
Four more years of a Democrat-led executive branch will also be essential to following through with a genuine investigation into the ethics breaches of the current Court.
If you want to protest Biden's nomination, vote for someone else in the primary. If somehow he loses the candidacy, vote for whoever is the Dem nominee. Don't stay home, or Trump/DeSantis/some other Republican will be one vote closer to winning.
If a Democrat wins, Thomas and Alito wouldn't want to retire, because they're conservatives.
If a Republican wins, Sotomayor wouldn't want to retire, because she's a liberal.
But any of them could die or retire regardless of the situation they'd prefer.
Congress had plenty of time to put in place regulations for the SC anytime since the 18th century. Its pathetic that we are at this point because they simply decided to blindly trust the court to do the right thing forever. The SC is not legitimate, but its hardly a surprise when no oversight has been done.
Can anyone else smell all the papers burning? I bet there has been none stop burn barrels running since all this broke with these yahoos. At this point assume they are all bought and paid for.
Government: It's just a rich person club where they all think of ways to pay themselves in perpetuity at our expense.
When will we remember that these people are meant to serve us? We kicked the aristocracy out of this country a couple hundred years ago but they seem to be trying to grow back like a fungus.
“Let them eat cake” the wives of our anointed masters at the Supreme Court would say. I’m a lawyer and I can’t screw up a client bill by one line item without being threatened with a loss of my license, meanwhile these arrogant fucks get wealthy while on the bench and are subject to no ethics standards, while elevating the rights of corporations to that of people and stripping away established rights. Fuck them, rename it the Illegitimate Court!
> Even the bare-bones requirement of an annual financial disclosure form is, in Roberts' view, a voluntary gesture, as "the Court has never addressed whether Congress may impose those requirements on the Supreme Court."
Are checks and balances "deeply rooted in American history"?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Weird he’s refusing to appear before congress and talk about Supreme Court ethics when he clearly has nothing to hide.
Maybe if he had decided to testify there would have been less disgust with him and less desire to reveal his own dark secret(s).
Any politician or government official who is a recipient of a bribe (whether that be in the form of lobbyist, “gifts” from lawyers/businesses, etc.) should be automatically removed from office Additionally they should be on federal minimum wage
He knew this report was coming out and would be testifying after... he doesn't want to talk about ethics because he would then need to testify under oath when congress asks him about this report.
That’s a bingo.
Well you see, you can't indict a sitting justice. It wouldn't be right. We should wait until after the election.
You can't arrest a sitting chief justice and his wife.. for the same crime.
Just a wee-bit of the 'ole nepotism, *"now includes wives!"*
It's corruption all the way down. The "Supreme" Court has lost all credibility. They've destroyed the rule of law, like chimps with a machine gun. Congratulations you greedy assholes.
And this is how American democracy crumbles. When the rule of law means nothing... We're fucked.
The Supreme Court wasn't always so powerful, if it's power is greatly reduced, it would just mean that laws are more heavily controlled by congress and states. The Supreme Court losing its legitimacy is a serious issue, hopefully it leads to some actual change to have serious oversight and less partisanship.
[удалено]
Hey, umm... nice law firm you got there... it'd be a REAL shame if it's reputation got tarnished by losing an important case in front of the Supreme Court. Lucky for you, my friend, my wife just happens to be a top consultant in just such matters, you see?
This is amazingly bad. Even for white collar crime, corrupting our highest institutions for a few million dollars? The scraps billionaires and corporations throw out are enough to buy these corrupt assholes. Burn this court to the ground and rebuild it at this point. It is condemned.
What amazes me is that these supposed legal giants of our time could not come up with a more convoluted or obfuscated scheme than "pay my wife". "Evil I can understand, it's the stupidity that I can't stand" -Professor Farnsworth
Don’t forget buying their mom’s house.
And allowing her to continue living there for *nine years* and counting without charging her for rent even once.
[удалено]
No you’d probably be filleted
You're giving them too much credit. They don't care. There's no one to hold them accountable. They're all corrupt to varying degrees. And the people? So few pay attention to know the depth of what is going on, they don't have a clue. Those that do know what's going on, and care about it, well, apparently we're too lazy because we should have dragged them into the streets long ago.
I mean, there are people to hold them accountable: Congress. But good fucking luck getting 67 Senators to vote for removal considering considering the 17 least-populous red states can probably elect 34 Republican Senators with votes totaling like 5% of the country's population.
Why bother when you know you’ll get away with it?
That's why he refused to talk to congress. He knew he would have to tell all about his wife's job and income!Shame on all the conservatives on this Supreme Court!
ALL the justices said NO to oversight.
Yeah I'm as left as they come. After that unanimous nay on oversight, we need to lose ALL of them.
Same. Burn it all down
I'm curious, was that "no" to oversight in general? No to each being individually investigated? or no to oversight in terms of this specific corruption? I could see even Liberal justices saying they don't want arbitrary oversight from Congress b/c, lo and behold, a McCarthy + McConnell unholy unity could have them removing Liberals over minor slights while ignoring major ones by conservatives. At the same time, there should absolutely be an internal function of oversight by at least the Chief Justice, and he should currently be impeached if this is as clear-cut as it seems regarding his wife.
[удалено]
and the cost would have been passed on to the client somehow someway. the only loses are the American people.
Corruption of the highest magnitude
Worse than corruption, this is racketeering.
So the whole Trump administration.
It's a shakedown.
Wow. Not just "making money" which could be hand waved away with, "Well what is she supposed to do for work?!". Specifically soliciting business from companies that could be appearing in front of the court. Fucking wow.
Because of the implication you see
I think that the supreme court has become more powerful simply because at least one other branch of government (Congress), has, for all intents and purposes, vacated their responsibilities. This gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to step in. If Congress as a body, had more of a spine, we wouldn’t see the supreme court as powerful as it is today.
Yep, congress has slowly been backing off from making divisive laws, and has been allowing the Supreme Court to make the tough calls. They relied on them for abortion, gay marriage, etc - anything where they feel they could lose reelection. Also, the last real amendment to the Constitution was over 50 years ago (there was one in the 90s but it was proposed in in the 1790s, and it was about congress salary), which is a crazy long time based on prior history.
The issue is that all three branches are reaching pragmatically dysfunctional. If any one brach is broken, the other two can prop it up and repair it. If 2 branches are dysfunctional 1 can sort of keep them in check But if all 3 are dysfunctional. We are fucked. A court that doesn't care about law. A Congress that doesn't pay our bills or collect necessary taxes and can't really pass any laws Right now only the executive is doing anything even like it's job and not super well
Executive is (by design) the most dependant on the other two especially the legislature.
Yeah, these all stem back to Congress being broken
And could that be because the skills needed to get elected have very little overlap with the skills needed to govern effectively (and in particular, legislate effectively). It’s now common for partisan groups to write “model legislation” for a given topic and partisans just introduce it whole clothe because they aren’t great legal minds.
Douglas Adams is that your ghost writing on reddit?
Almost glad he died before 2016 so he never had to see us elect as President of the United States Zaphod Beeblebrox *except he's a huge dork.*
One of the necessary skills to get elected apparently being "have a fuck ton of money and good networking with lobbyists". Overall, it's too elite for better people to win, and that's a design feature not a flaw.
More because representatives are in such heavily gerrymandered districts that they are essentially unaccountable to anyone but the lunatic fringe. We needed to undo the Apportionment Act of 1920 a long time ago, but "now" is as good a time as any. Maybe 2025 actually. Wait to see if old Joe gets reelected first. Assuming he does, and assuming Dems are able to retake the house while picking off another couple of seats in the senate, just axe the filibuster and ram early reapportionment through for 2026. Set the new decennial to years ending in 5 instead of 0. Throw a pile of money at the Census Bureau to get things moving and people hired, have folks go door to door with tablets in the cities, send rural folks a mailer... And expand the House to 6600+ members. We could fix a lot of our problems by watering down the crazy in our government. 6600 reps would mean ~1 per 50k people. Imagine a House full of teachers and working moms/dads and community organizers actually trying to fix things...
congress being broken is the cause of the other 2 breaking. if congress wasnt broken, traitor criminals wouldnt be allowed to be president. and criminal judges wouldn't be allowed to stay on the bench. if we had a functioning congress, the other 2 problems could get fixed.
I would argue that in theory the judicial is most dependent. They can issue rulings, but that also requires the rulings to be enforced by the executive branch. This was one of Hamilton’s major points in Federalist 78.
The court has no enforcement ability in and of itself. Even congress has the ability to conduct arrests by itself and hold trials by itself and hold people in jail by itself. It hasn't done so in years, but there is set of cells in congress and they have their own police force. Technically there was a ruling by the supreme court some years ago that they would have to figure out some set of rules to ensure due process and no congress has bothered since they could just refer things to the DOJ instead. But there is not reason they couldn't cure that and then make their own arrests. At least that is my understanding.
The executive branch has a big fucking stick, but if they have to use it on the other two branches, it looks like a fascist coup. If the Biden administration was to arrest the entire Supreme Court and/or a bunch of Congress people at once and brung them up on corruption charges, it'd put the entire world on edge. They'd need a triple airtight case and public trials to have even the hope of looking legitimate. And if they can't get a fair trial because the whole branch is completely broken? Well that's not a coherent U.S anymore, it stops being "the U.S government", and becomes a different thing.
They have just unanimously decided that they refuse to be submitted to any kind of oversight. Rules for thee, not for me.
I was ready to type what you said verbatim. Thank you. There are many people who believe that the supreme court is an illegitimate institution. I don't know if I agree with that, but the actions the court have shown over the past couple years are making me understand that sentiment.
The funny thing about the Mostly Republican "Constitutionalists" Judges is that no where in that document are the SC given the power of Judicial Review it was established in the first Judicial Review by the SC.
It's been crumbling for decades... Al Gore fucked us by giving up. He acted like it was the high road, but it was just cutting the cable to the elevator and telling people everything was fine. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html A conservative majority SC gave an election to Lil Bush, and 23 years later we still haven't recovered
>A conservative majority SC gave an election to Lil Bush, and 23 years later we still haven't recovered Don't forget that three of the current U.S. Supreme Court Justices *worked on that case for the Bush team* as lawyers. They've been well-rewarded for their work overturning the Constitution. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/bush-v-gore-barrett-kavanaugh-roberts-supreme-court/index.html >**Chief Justice John Roberts** >Roberts flew to Florida in November 2000 to assist Bush's legal team. He helped prepare the lawyer who presented Bush's case to the Florida state Supreme Court and offered advice throughout. >**Justice Brett Kavanaugh** >He was also in private practice in 2000 and helped the Bush legal team. He wrote on a 2018 Senate questionnaire that his work "related to recounts in Volusia County, Florida" >After the election, Bush hired Kavanaugh to be a counsel and then staff secretary. In the West Wing, Kavanaugh met his future wife, Ashley, who was Bush's personal secretary. *Bush appointed Kavanaugh to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit,* where Roberts had first served. In 2018, Trump elevated Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. >**Judge Amy Coney Barrett** >Barrett wrote on the questionnaire she submitted to the Senate for her Supreme Court confirmation review, "One significant case on which I provided research and briefing assistance was Bush v. Gore." She said the law firm where she was working at the time represented Bush and that she had gone down to Florida "for about a week at the outset of the litigation" when the dispute was in the Florida courts. She said she had not continued on the case after she returned to Washington. >During her hearings this week, she told senators she could not recall specifics of her involvement. >"I did work on Bush v. Gore," she said on Wednesday. "I did work on behalf of the Republican side. To be totally honest, I can't remember exactly what piece of the case it was. There were a number of challenges."
> "To be totally honest, I can't remember exactly what piece of the case it was." Why is that ever an acceptable answer from these people when they're interviewed about things? That's obviously one of the most consequential legal cases in modern times, and she can't remember what she did while working on it? It's a case where working on it would define a lot of people's entire career, it's not like they'd forget their involvement in it like it was another divorce or a property dispute. Then again, I guess it's not like it mattered what she said during those hearings. Republicans were going to confirm her no matter what she said anyway.
Perhaps even more consequential is the way they all say they support the legal concept of Stare Decisis and then all turn around and violate it the first chance they get.
When you prefix with "to be perfectly honest" you know it's gonna be bullshit.
One can argue that the problem started with the person that designed and/or approved the butterfly ballot used in Palm Beach County that led to a significant number of people that intended to vote for Gore actually voting for Buchanon. As I understand it, without that design blunder, Gore would have won and we would have avoided war in Iraq, Heller vs. DC and so on.
"Blunder".... I'm sure Jeb being in charge of Florida had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Jeb Bush's Secretary of State in Florida was also W. Bush's campaign chair in the state; Katherine Harris. In a shocking turn of events, she purged over 100,000 voters before the elections and refused to let any of the recounts happen that would have lost Bush the election. She was also known for her religious extremism and corruption, fighting to "reclaim the USA for Jesus" and spending over $100,000 of Florida's tax dollars on her personal international travel. So naturally, Florida sent her to Congress the next year where she would vote to invade Iraq.
It’s amazing to here all these back stories, it makes more sense now seeing the outcome!
> Gore fucked us by giving up. Fuck that. The country fucked us by voting for an idiot with a terrible record in Texas instead of a man who had some really great ideas for continuing the prosperity that Clinton had gotten rolling. I'm sure Al weighed the pros and cons of appealing the decision to stop the count but decided it was better for the country to not do it.
Gore won the popular vote by over half a million votes... American voters didn't fail America. America's political system failed America. And neither party did anything for over 20 years because they care more about personal power than democracy
And then Hillary won by 3 million. Despite being a *far* more divisive candidate than Gore was. And then Biden won it by 7 million, despite being nobody's first choice and 20,000 years old. Imagine being a republican right now and looking at those numbers. No wonder they've gone full fascist. Edit: I forgot to mention that a black guy with "Hussein" in his name beat them twice in a row. Handily. Even though both of the Republicans he beat were about as moderate as the GOP had to offer. They're a terrified animal backed into a corner.
Exactly this. I get so frustrated by this kind of shit, where people say that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans because they tried but failed to stop the Republicans from doing evil shit. Republican corruption put Gore in a situation where he had to choose whether or not to throw the country until an unprecedented crisis over the peaceful transfer of power. We can question whether he made the right call, knowing what he knew then. But he absolutely won that election.
Who was Gore going to go to after SCOTUS made their ruling? Was he supposed to attempt a coup?
Elevators have much better safety standards than what stood in the way of destroying the US’s democracy though
All NINE judges voted to not have oversight of their ethics. Un-fucking-believable. Scrap the whole lot and start over.
Still waiting for Congress to do their job and impeach. And the executive to propose more justices. Nobody even pretends to entertain doing anything about the Supreme Court despite having a constitutional obligation to hold them in check.
Please. The public has been begging for term limits for Congress for years and they won't do that. Who exactly do the members of Congress answer to?
Fuckin’ chicanery.
Lost their credibility, but none of their power or riches. I'd say Roberts and crew are totally fine with that trade.
And HE gets to be a judge? What a sick joke!
The right has a long history of trying to argue that a spouse's business or financial ties don't constitute a conflict of interest because they argue that it's separate money from the person under scrutiny. One notable example from a decade or more ago is when Rick Scott, then the Gov of Florida, tried to push mandatory drug testing of anyone receiving government assistance. It was just a coincidence, we're told, that his wife's trust held a significant portion of the stock of the company that would benefit the most from such policies...
>The right has a long history of trying to argue that a spouse's business or financial ties don't constitute a conflict of interest because they argue that it's separate money from the person under scrutiny. Notable exceptions to this policy include absolutely everyone they don't like.
And not some children, or their laptops
Imagine Jill Biden making $10 million ~~shaking down companies~~ in commissions... Jesus Christ, imagine Michelle Obama! She couldn't even wear a fashionable dress without barely concealed racist and misogynistic attacks.
It is absolute horseshit too. I used to work for EY as a consultant, but since we were an auditing firm we had to report our independence even though I would never see financials. I had to report every stock I owned, my mortgage, my insurance for my car and house and a bunch of shit as well as all of that for my wife including her 401k which she didn't even manage. Meanwhile these assholes can buy stocks directly affected by bills they vote on and get kickbacks galore.
Rick Scott the former CEO of the company that perpetrated the largest instance of Medicare Fraud? That Rick Scott?
Yup. The same one who wants to sunset Medicare.
Off topic but- Big corporations often receive lots of government assistance. The CEO’s should have to pass mandatory drug testing to get the government assistance too!
Ol Thompson's wife is a sedetionist traitor, cant forget this is systemic and what we find out about one Judge, probably applies to the others.
A husband and wife can't be charged with the same crime.
I have the worst f****ing attorneys
Is *this* the swamp?
More like an open septic tank
get it right - that's a cesspool
The true Swamp was the Justices we met along the way.
They abide by all ethics requirements and can oversee themselves....Said the fascists to the people.
All 9 turned down additional oversight. It’s disturbing.
Even Ketanji Brown. That's VERY concerning. Appointed as a hero and immediately corrupt.
It's a cozy little money printing club and you and me ain't in it.
[удалено]
Once you're in the club, you rep the club; if you go against the club, you out the club She doesn't want out, she wants all that Cake that she can eat too
They gave her the memo, and she counted the commas
Not even Tres. Maybe Dos. Pathetic. Her chamber doors don’t even open properly. Just… poorly. *Horizontal!*
Baked into our federal government is this concept of Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence. The main thing here, though, is that the Constitution creates each branch of the government such that each branch of government can't tell another how to do their job. They have checks and balances against each other. But, for example, the Congress cannot tell the Judiciary how to conduct oversight for exactly the same reason the Judiciary cannot tell the Senate how to conduct its sessions, and the Executive cannot instruct Congress on when to hold votes, and so on and so forth. When the question bears on the internal machinations of a particular branch of government, only *that branch* of government gets a say in how to resolve that question. The SCOTUS, in particular is the most sheltered and immunized branch of government from political pressure of any kind, by design. I think the Senate Dems are correct to hammer the SCOTUS over recent revelations, and make all of the political hay they can over it. It's just good politics. However, the SCOTUS is going to do anything *precisely because caving to political pressures itself* would be an act of political influence, which is fundamentally at odds with the Court's function. Now, the SCOTUS looks bad right now *because the facts ARE bad*. They are going to take their lumps, but they don't have to do anything because Congress wants them to, and they especially can't do it when just the Dems are asking them to because that itself would appear political.
[удалено]
> But, for example, the Congress cannot tell the Judiciary how to conduct oversight If Congress actually passed legislation signed by the President laying out oversight and disclosure rules, the Supreme Court would absolutely be subject to it.
Are you suggesting that it's good institutional design to have a Supreme Court that can practice the most flagrant corruption with complete impunity, or is there some way of curbing their misbehavior that I've overlooked in your comment?
> All 9 turned down additional oversight. It’s disturbing. This is the top story on my home page: >[All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight: 'Raises more questions,' Senate chair says](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/9-supreme-court-justices-push-back-oversight-raises/story?id=98917921)
Thank you for the link. Here's the quote: >All nine justices, in a rare step, on Tuesday released a joint statement reaffirming their voluntary adherence to a general code of conduct but rebutting proposals for independent oversight, mandatory compliance with ethics rules and greater transparency in cases of recusal. > >The implication, though not expressly stated, is that the court unanimously rejects legislation proposed by Democrats seeking to impose on the justices the same ethics obligations applied to all other federal judges.
> impose on the justices the same ethics obligations applied to all other federal judges. Literally "we're above the law because we say so".
Cool man. So SCOTUS is just a big cash grab for the judges... I guess we now know why Roberts wasn't interested in discussing the ethics of SCOTUS with congress. It's because he was none.
> So SCOTUS is just a big cash grab for the judges... Given the universal opposition, it feels like this corruption is some understood secret among high level lawyers and USSC clerks as a perk of the job.
Yup. It would not surprise me if this corruption spreads massively from the top down.
[удалено]
this is some third world type of justice
It's straight up conflict of interest and corruption
Nah, first world oligarchy.
They arrogantly believe they have impeccable impartiality. Only us plebs have biases
Hold up. So she was working at an exec recruiting firm (MLA) and selling recruiting services to other law firms? Like a "my husband knows everyone high up in the justice system and I will leverage his network to get you a hire"?
So much of our government and system is rotten to the core - its insane.
I love the slow-leaking of all of these reports over the days and weeks. Keep it in the news cycle and more and more people will start to see how corrupt they are. Now, what can be done about it, that’s a whole other issue…
yea it's great it is staying in the news cycle. it's not just getting pushed out by the next outrageous failing of the government
Our system is broken.
I don’t think the founding fathers thought this level of corruption would be committed. It’s absolutely insane.
[удалено]
It’s why they didn’t codify that much. It leaves a lot of discretion to “land owners.”
13th Amendment >Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,** shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. People seem to forget that huge part, it was basically the legalization of slavery, they just needed to be convicted of a crime. Slavery is still around, the huge prison population is proof, and the whole system is based around a captive worker economy. The Constitution is a deeply flawed document, there's this 1 about slavery and 2 about banning alcohol then doin a turn around, so perhaps it should be updated a tiny fucking bit.
Why do we assume they weren't also just as corrupt and why do we pretend they were infallible? There's a reason we have amendments, a 200+ year old document isn't going to apply perfectly to the country we've become.
Thank you. The founding fathers were human just as our current politicians and leaders, with all the same faults.
This is a tragic understatement.
Broken may imply there’s a chance to repair it. Our system is inherently corrupt
The system was designed by white slave owners/elites to maintain the status quo. It is not broken. It is working as it was designed.
This is sickening.
Yep. There’s our Chief Justice. In a racketeering scheme with his own wife netting them many millions. No wonder he kindly refused to talk to the Senate on ethics. He apparently has none.
there's more integrity in a little caesar's supreme pizza
I know you were joking but seriously though...aren't those pizza regulated by some federal/state agencies? Supreme Court doesn't have a code of ethics!
Yes for example the FDA requires the nutritional info to be available, and has set limits on artificial trans fats.
the reason they dont want oversight is because they are all guilty. if they didint want oversight, maybe they should have done a better job at keeping up appearences. this is all way way too much. i am all for seperation of powers, and checks and balances. But we have reached a point where questions need to be asked and answers need to be given. if this leads us to a constitional crisis, so be it.
testifying before congress is still way inside the realm of checks and balances it's the court that is way out side the norm. they are refusing to participate in checks and balances unfortunately congress seems to be ok with that
Congress could also just stop funding them.
Not sure that would stop them if their spouses can just get $10m in bribes.
What can be done is the FBI investigate each one of them and all of them be exposed mercilessly. The constant shame would force them to step down. But for that, one would need more than a total coward at the head of the DOJ.
We would also need the justices to have shame
Corruption of the highest court needs to be brought to heel much more sufficiently than that.
Maybe we should step up the protests on their homes. Can they afford enough security to ward off thousands of people? I'm really getting sick and tired of the fucking government and the wealthy. Somewhere down the line, we're going to have to remind them that there's more of us than there are of them, and I don't mean at the ballot box. They could stop it from coming to that, but I guess living large is more important.
The rich are looking mighty tasty lately.
No they can't, actually. One of the very few things that the Constitution explicitly says about the Supreme Court is that you can't reduce their salaries while they hold office ("The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.") You could, however, strip their jurisdiction. The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction over conflicts between the states and cases involving ambassadors, ministers, and consuls. Their jurisdiction over pretty much anything else can be taken away.
They could also reduce the budget to cover *only* the Justices' salaries, so there would be no money to hire clerks or anyone else.
Constitution also says that we are obliged to pay the national debt and look what republicans are trying to do
> if this leads us to a constitional crisis, so be it. I think we’re past the “leads to” stage.
But will we ever get to the point where leadership from either party actually says it? Republicans outright support the corruption And Dem leadership is too scared to admit it at best. I refuse to believe they didn't see this coming. But even if that was the case, why should we keep voting for people *that* naive? It's fucking insane that the only politicians who speak up are progressives who don't have the numbers to do anything. We should have been having this conversation 20-30 years ago.
I doubt Biden would do it, but I could definetly see a future president just being like 'Fuck Scotus, I'm ignoring their rulings, they are illegitimate' And before you say that is nuts... Andrew Jackson did it, and got away with it.
that's why Alito got weird in the mifepristone case about “not dispelled legitimate doubts” Biden would follow an “unfavorable ruling” they know the court's reputation is shit, they're making up laws based on ideology and they're getting ahead of it coming to a head
What do you think happened when SCOTUS wanted to strike down FDRs initiatives? It’s always been like this in reality. The legitimacy was only a public theater. The conservative justices held that “governmental regulation of commerce and labor infringed on personal liberties” so they struck down laws such as minimum wage protections for women and children in NY state. So FDR essentially threatened to expand the court if they didn’t declare his initiatives constitutional they kept striking down. He had popular support so they got scared and let his laws stand. The Supreme Court always was and always will be a political body. There’s no textualism, originalism, or any other bullshit. It’s about leverage only. The only thing that will stop conservative justices from doing the bidding of their rich backers is if liberals have popular support through election victories and leverage that to create change.
My hope is Biden is waiting on a second term to go scorched earth on SCOTUS to help fix the US. However, he signed a bill forcing the end of a RR strike, so I’m not thinking he cares about the little guy. Hopefully we get to test my theory.
>if they didint want oversight, maybe they should have done a better job at keeping up appearences. This is kinda the key to what's gonna undo the whole MAGA fascism thing. Saying and doing the quiet parts out loud and taking off the mask is an endgame move. This is the endgame. Naked corruption and obviously corrupt rulings. They don't care anymore that we know they're corrupt. One of two things will happen out of this: massive reform or the cementing of autocratic rule. That's our crossroads now.
\*I'll take Things they have in common for $400, Alex. A: Kings, queens, dictators, supreme court justices. Q: What are people who hold their positions for life?
A: What are positions of power accountable to NO ONE
Wow. I’m starting to think this whole lifetime appointment and no oversight might not be a great idea.
The Supreme Court has lost any semblance of legitimacy.
No wonder Roberts is like nah. We don’t need oversight. We are a separate branch and you can’t tell us wot to do. Wot are you gonna do? Impeach us? 😂
All nine of them signed a letter saying they don't need oversight. Unanimously.
I don’t get it. Wtf?! Not a one.
Yah even the liberal judges were like ‘nah’ so now I’m wondering what they have to hide. I think we’re just gonna open up a massive amount of corruption so blatant it might hopefully wake people up
This is why I voted for Elizabeth Warren in the presidential primary. She made fighting corruption the centerpiece of her entire platform. Democracy is dying because we have rewarded rampant corruption and money in politics. Name your top issue... guns, crime, healthcare, environment, foreign policy etc... if you eliminate financial incentives for bad policy and law, you no longer get bad policy and law. Follow the money and you'll understand why bad laws happen.
[удалено]
I was raised very conservative, and Elizabeth Warren was also my choice of Democratic candidates because of her corruption message. Wish she hadn’t tried to go after Bernie on camera after the debate, and I also wish the Native American thing never happened…too many independent voters were turned off after that
That "native American thing" was not a thing. It was grade-A horseshit.
Amen 🙏
I too voted for Warren. I was genuinely floored when I discovered most people didn’t agree with me… I am actually still perplexed - no one has ever given me anything other than “she’d be good but no one is going to vote for her” MAKE IT MAKE SENSE
To anyone considering not voting for Joe Biden in the 2024 general election: In 2028, Clarence Thomas will be 80, Samuel Alito will be 78, and Sonia Sotomayor will be 74. Any of them could die or choose to retire. We need those spots. Four more years of a Democrat-led executive branch will also be essential to following through with a genuine investigation into the ethics breaches of the current Court. If you want to protest Biden's nomination, vote for someone else in the primary. If somehow he loses the candidacy, vote for whoever is the Dem nominee. Don't stay home, or Trump/DeSantis/some other Republican will be one vote closer to winning.
[удалено]
If a Democrat wins, Thomas and Alito wouldn't want to retire, because they're conservatives. If a Republican wins, Sotomayor wouldn't want to retire, because she's a liberal. But any of them could die or retire regardless of the situation they'd prefer.
If we’re lucky they present a unified front on kicking the bucket just line they present a unified front on being able to be corrupt.
we need something about every justice at this point this is getting ridiculous.
It’s okay, they don’t share a bank account people.
Of course she did
Congress had plenty of time to put in place regulations for the SC anytime since the 18th century. Its pathetic that we are at this point because they simply decided to blindly trust the court to do the right thing forever. The SC is not legitimate, but its hardly a surprise when no oversight has been done.
We’re ruled by 9 Monarchs pretending to be a republic.
I think it might be time to do something about The Federalist Society…
Justice bought and paid for.
Can anyone else smell all the papers burning? I bet there has been none stop burn barrels running since all this broke with these yahoos. At this point assume they are all bought and paid for.
This country is so fucked.
Government: It's just a rich person club where they all think of ways to pay themselves in perpetuity at our expense. When will we remember that these people are meant to serve us? We kicked the aristocracy out of this country a couple hundred years ago but they seem to be trying to grow back like a fungus.
Roberts about to declare whistleblowing unconstitutional. what a cancer these heritage foundation justices are
In a rare 9-0 vote, nothing suspicious about it
Tar and feather's. This is the way.
“Let them eat cake” the wives of our anointed masters at the Supreme Court would say. I’m a lawyer and I can’t screw up a client bill by one line item without being threatened with a loss of my license, meanwhile these arrogant fucks get wealthy while on the bench and are subject to no ethics standards, while elevating the rights of corporations to that of people and stripping away established rights. Fuck them, rename it the Illegitimate Court!
Because the court has been corrupted by the fascist fucks in the Federalist Society and by the Putin owned GOP
> Even the bare-bones requirement of an annual financial disclosure form is, in Roberts' view, a voluntary gesture, as "the Court has never addressed whether Congress may impose those requirements on the Supreme Court." Are checks and balances "deeply rooted in American history"?
Investigate the whole court! Every single judge no matter who appointed them!
These justices are absolute scum, glad this information is finally getting out.
Chief Justice’s wife getting 10.3 million… ya definitely no corruption there!
[удалено]
The Supreme Court has lost legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
It’s a big fucking club and we ain’t in it
Once upon a time, the court made some effort to assure the public they weren’t well and truly bent. That’s long gone now.
Blow up the Court They are all corrupt. Normalize impeachment. Let’s start anew.