Senate majority report on SCOTUS ethics

Hmmm
I seem to recall a report from the house repubs regarding Jan 6th and the FBI being booed as partisan because it was the repubs that brought it forward. But how we are all to believe the Dems report on the SCOTUS.
This is what we get with tribalism.
My side good your side evil. Not wrong.. evil.. and must be stopped out.
It’s a sad state of affairs.

 

No o e questioned the ethics of the SCOTUS before conservatives became the majority. Then it was absolutely ethical .. right? But now.. well.. we need to really look at the SCOTUS ethics.. all of them because .. I mean .. now it’s a conservative SCOTUS and that may not be ethical.
That’s exactly what this reeks of. Tribalism.

 

You don't think anybody questioned the ethics of SCOTUS before the last 40-50 years where the court has been run by conservatives?

 

not true.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/02/21/justice/scotus-ethics-rules/index.html

 

That was still during a conservative majority. Do you honestly think that there was not been a concerted effort by groups on The Left to question the legitimacy of the SCOTUS since 2017 in order to justify SCOTUS reforms or expansion in ways that they never did prior to Bush appointing Roberts and Alito?

 

Apparently you're too young to remember, in 1969 Abe Fortas, a liberal justice, was forced to resign from the Court for accepting a payment from a former client, the amount of which was far less than what Clarence Thomas has received in the form of gratuities from Harlan Crow. Ethics mattered back then they don't matter to a Congress and especially MAGA Republicans as well as a right-wing media ecosystem driven entirely by politics. Although a different issue it's analogous to the difference between the treatment of Richard Nixon and Donald Trump. Nixon was forced to resign based on the virtual certainty of impeachment and conviction. Trump whose behavior was far worse was given a free pass.

 

Good grief
The whole point was why should we suddenly take this dem led report seriously since the last four years all they have done is attack the legitimacy of a conservative court. Of course I think the courts ethics should be u see a microscope I just find it VERY convenient that NOW we need to really focus on the SCOTUS. And 1996? Really? Almost 30 years ago? That’s the best you had?
Cmon.
The tribalism is apparent when we are told on this board that any investigation brought by the house repubs is pure trash and partisan but a report brought by senate Dems must be true and honest and should be taken seriously.

 

Whether it's a liberal justice or a conservative justice members of the SCOTUS should not accept gratuities from individuals or organizations that have an interest in the outcome of cases before the Court. In case of Thomas it wasn't just the gratuities that he was receiving from Crow. He heard other cases in which at a minimum there was the appearance of a conflict of interest involving issues in which his wife advocated either directly or indirectly for one of the litigants. Ginnie Thomas was an active proponent of the false narrative of that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump. Given that the apparent conflict of interest Clarence Thomas should have recused himself from any case involving the election including cases involving the January 6th attempted insurrection. He failed to do so. Ginnie Thomas also lobbied against the Affordable Care Act. Once again Clarence Thomas should have recused himself from every case challenging the Act and again he failed to do so.

 

Oh no doubt. But you do see that no matter what happens the left will claim they are right and honest and good and the repubs are evil and need to be stopped destroyed and removed at all cost.
And the Right side will claim they are good fearing honest good people and the Dems are evil sin loving garbage that needs to be wiped from the face of the earth. Both sides will spin, lie, and be myopic in seeing “facts”. That’s the tribalism.

 

I don’t necessarily disagree. But failure to recuse from a case for conflict of interest has LONG been an issue for judges left and right. It’s nothing new and has been going on for a while. The issue NOW is that certain media types and left leaning individuals are all up in arms and claiming SCOTUS is corruot. Just look in this page and you see it all the time. But we never heard about it before when other judges were refusing to recuse.

 

In this post, only the first time impropriety is alleged should be considered legitimate. Otherwise, "all they have done is attack the legitimacy of ______ (insert victim)."

Also, OJ is totally innocent. Because right from the start, once they found all the evidence that he cut two people's heads off with a knife, all they had done is attack the legitimacy of him.




Alternate possibility ; the court contains unethical scumbags whose legitimacy should have been questioned before, during, and still.

 

Your are looking at things through partisan lens, though you may think otherwise. Read each report and judge each on the merits, i.e., on the evidence presented.

 

Nope
I did read them and I fully understand them. My issue is with all those that flat said
This is a repub report.. it’s worthless. Not because the report was worthless but because of WHO had submitted it.
Now those same people are praising this report.
Same thing happened with the house CoVid report. It was because of who wrote it. Not a mention of the content. Just tribalism on we don’t need to read it because of who kit came from.