this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
880 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19149 readers
4221 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 107 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Thomas: Ethics are for poors

[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 year ago (2 children)

“Ethics are not in the constitution”

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

What he would actually say...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

Thomas: fuck you I got mine

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

And the blacks /s

[–] MattyXarope 80 points 1 year ago (6 children)

And yet there are 0 consequences for not doing so. What is Congress going to do?

[–] bemenaker 53 points 1 year ago

In sane times there was impeachment. But we are not living in those sane times.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Congress is legally allowed to impeach any SCOTUS justice they want.

[–] Nightwingdragon 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And the chances of it actually leading to removal from SCOTUS hover around zero.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Blame Congress for that. It's their fault for never actually using their abilities.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] TheCommonMan 52 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Correction Democratic Senators call for ethics code, Republican Senators say the branches should not monitor each other.

[–] Buffaloaf 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They think "checks and balances" refers to campaign donations.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Important distinction

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seriously. Why are they getting handouts when they can legally get rich on insider trading, like normal Congress members? (/s in case you think I’m serious)

[–] B007 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

One is legal and other isn’t.

[–] FlashMobOfOne 7 points 1 year ago

They're both effectively legal when none of our elected lawmakers will hold them accountable.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Raphael 37 points 1 year ago (3 children)

A guillotine should be fine, behead a couple corrupt judges and the rest should fall in line quickly enough.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Wait, what?!? In the US, Supreme Court judges have no code of ethics?!?! If I'm not mistaken, here in Canada all judges are bound by a code of ethics: https://cjc-ccm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2021/CJC_20-301_Ethical-Principles_Bilingual%20FINAL.pdf

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pretty sure it's the same in Australia. Our judges are also appointed by their legal peers who are also held to a pretty strict code of ethics. Breaches of these codes can result in being stripped of your right to practice law. These features combined limit this nonsense of partisan judges tthat the US seems to be afflicted with.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

all the other judges have a code of ethic. scotus insists that it has a code of ethics too, but that it has to keep that code secret or people with business before the court will try to abuse that code of ethics in order to force unfavorable justices to recuse themselves. scotus also tells us that taking money, favors and gifts from people who have business before the court does not violate the secret code of ethics that they have. how a code of ethics that doesn't cover bribery differs from a code of ethics that doesn't exist at all has been left as an exercise to the reader.

[–] paddirn 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's absolute insanity that members of the highest court in the land don't have to abide by such pesky rules as "codes of ethics" or even have to worry about the appearance of impropriety. I'm guessing it's another of those things where the Founding Fathers assumed that selfless politicians, working tirelessly in service of their countrymen, would come together for the good of the nation to impeach SOC judges if there was ever even a hint of something wrong happening.

Meanwhile, in reality it's just this BS club of unelected judges that get to basically make their own policy without any oversight. I get that somebody somewhere has to be a deciding factor on how some of these cases play out, but given the weight and responsibility that comes with the position, they really should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us.

[–] Phlogiston 4 points 1 year ago

because when you get right down to it anything they did would be themselves doing it and thus subject to themselves NOT doing it. so the founding documents cut to the chase -- impeach the fuckers if they need it.

(of course, as you hint, they didn't appropriately plan for party capture)

[–] CupDock 26 points 1 year ago
[–] FlyingSquid 22 points 1 year ago

Supreme Court says, "fuck you, make me. But not right now, I'm off to my buddy's yacht."

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

Holy pot kettle black Batman

[–] BeautifulMind 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's so exhausting when ethics are considered a partisan issue and the ones against ethics and oversight will not shut up accusing others of unethical behavior. Also, the 'ethics codes' congressmen and senators are supposed to abide by aren't enforced in anything like a rigorous or consistent way.

At the very least, congressmen, senators, and justices ought to be held to standards higher than the standards they're responsible for holding others to. Unfortunately, holding them to those higher standards is a sort of power that would be instantly abused the moment anyone with an agenda and crap ethics has it, another 'who will watch the watchmen?' conundrum

This shit is why we can't have nice things apparently

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

dissolve the court. arrest gorsuch, thomas, alito and kavanaugh. investigate everyone else and if they even so much as took a breath mint from someone who had business before the court, arrest them too. "but what about the liberal justices?" yes, them too. arrest the corrupt. it's not an extreme position.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But how will they get all those free vacations?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

They will just speech millions of dollars to their spouses

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Real talk:

What would be the actual consequences here? Because as far as I can tell, ethics bodies over the other branches are about as worthless as the bioethics division at Umbrella Labs.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I doubt the Senate has any code of ethics anyway.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The other branches have ethics codes?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually, yes.

As does the federal judiciary. Alito was a federal judge and while serving as such he knew damn well that any gift over about $20 had to be both turned down, and also reported.

That's the rules that federal judges live under, the same rules that most of the executive branch lives under.

Senators and Representatives have looser rules, but they do have them... And Thomas and Alito have been instrumental in loosening those rules.

Ted Cruz and the conservatives on the court actually made outright bribery legal if the bribed jumps through the right hoops. See FCC v Ted Cruz for more info.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As a former school bus driver I can assure you that if you don't have consequences, you don't have rules.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

For everyone except supreme court justices and sitting senators, there are actual consequences for accepting gifts in excess of $20. And sitting senators used to have consequences as well. Until republicans decided that the rules didn't apply to them, so they got rid of the rules.

The aggravating thing is, without rules in place, you cannot punish someone for breaking the rules. Not unless you like mob justice, with is never actually just, and never stops until the bloodlust is fully slaked.

[–] Tot 5 points 1 year ago

Ya but it doesn't seem there's a whole lot of punishment for violating them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

my first thought too lol. you wouldnt think so based on the levels of corruption in government

[–] Ensign_Crab 14 points 1 year ago

I'd like to see them held to an actual standard instead of what we let the other two branches get away with.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

"lol"

  • Thomas
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Guess it's time for the ol' heave-ho of an antiquated system.

load more comments
view more: next ›