Corruption in the SCOTUS

For everyone who doesn’t know Giuliani most recently worked for Greenberg Traurig.

 

tha thas a real stench to it. I would like to know the ask and sell price and the market price at the time.

Senate judiciary needs to drop the hammer and let the pubs in the senate vote on the record against these corrupt judges. I doubt even MAGA wants the judges to be bought and paid for

 

Nothing to vote on. Can’t impeach unless House does. Can’t subpoena

 

But Democrats can and should expand the SCOTUS once they get a super majority in the Senate. I believe democrats will retake the House, and if they keep the Senate I would like to see them put ethics rules in place for the SCOTUS.

 

How do they do that without the House? Not defending the court, far from it. Nor am I just dismissing the concept. Just saying it’s not politically available.

 

Available and should be done is for Durbin to relax the blue slip process and get some of the seats filled, and get through the Feinstein log jam. Maybe even trade it off

 

They can’t and it would take a super majority in the Senate, but I see I need to edit my post.

 

As long as were being cheeky and talking about mental competency, and one branch, we should declare that Alito and Thomas are obviously senile old cranks No longer fit to serve, and declare that the entire Fifth Circuit is obviously mentally diseased, unable to mentally function, based upon the lack of reasoning in their opinions. Obviously, some of those judges still have their mental faculties, but the court as a whole is obviously mentally deficient

 

The rubes probably still think these people are all about draining the swamp. It’s really unbelievable.

 

Senate judiciary committee doesn't have subpoena powers over the judicial system?

 

An arguable point, but the justices will claim separation of powers, and who do you appeal to?

 

The house? I honestly have no idea. Does roberts want to force a constitutional crisis to avoid having to agree to a reasonable set of ethics standards? Do house republicans want to vote none or very loose ethics codes for the Supremes? Am i wrong that both sides of the minions see this as corruption?

 

The Senate definitely has the power to subpoena the justices. If they refuse to comply, you refer them for prosecution or threaten the Supreme Court's funding.

 

Don’t think I agree. Don’t think the DOJ would act on the referral. As far as funding, they could never get the House, votes in the Senate, or the President. But even if they did, though not directly on point, the Vesting Clause would likely be invoked


Section 1 Vesting Clause
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. 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.

 

That Clause only deals with their compensation. It doesn't say anything about Congress having to pay for law clerks or all the fancy amenities. And the DOJ should absolutely act on the referral. Nobody is above the law. We have checks and balances. If I get subpoenaed, I have to show up. They are no different. There is no clause in the Constitution that protects them from having to testify before Congress.

 

There’s no clause in the Constitution for a lot of constitutional law. There’s no clause in the Constitution for separation of powers.

 

If separation of powers insulate judges from being subpoenaed by Congress, it also insulates executive officers. Yet, we know it doesn't. If Roberts wants to claim he's above the law, I say let him. Subpoena him, and call his bluff. It'll only do more damage to the legitimacy of the institution.

 

The only way the Reich wingers would care is if you replaced the name Clarence Thomas with Hunter Biden

 

That's Congressional oversight pursuant to their spending power, which is considered a different pedigree Constitutionally, although Clarence Thomas doesn't believe Congressional oversight actually exists.

Though we don't really follow it and have not from the beginning, in theory, the Executive Branch never sets policy or controls any spending, it only executes on policy set by Congress. Therefore Congress has oversight. Congress is paramount under our constitutional structure. Congress can remove the President and override vetoes.

The judiciary is supposed to be separate and does not have any policy arm or any reason to be subject to Congressional oversight. Again, that's naive. The current Court especially enacts more policy than Congress and the President put together.

But that's why there would be a credible argument that the Court is not subject to Congressional oversight.

But it's easy to distinguish subpoena of executive officers versus subpoena of judges. Then again, Roberts or his designee appears at least annually in budget requests. I don't know when that is set to happen.

 

I see Roberts has "respectfully declined" Durbins invitation to testify on ethics. Surprise Surprise.

Not quite the same but reminds me of all those Trump appointees ignoring subpoenas. Too bad the average American can't do the same.


https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-...es-senate-request-to-testify-on-court-ethics/