Democrats To Hold Supreme Court Ethics Talk In Attempt To Ramp Up Pressure

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Huff Post

Jun 6, 2024, 12:17 PM EDT


Democrats on the House oversight committee are planning to hold a discussion on Supreme Court ethics with expert panelists Tuesday as public trust in the institution continues to take hits.

The committee’s ranking member, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), will lead the discussion alongside Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who chairs the Senate judiciary subcommittee on federal courts.

All three lawmakers have repeatedly joined calls for the court to implement stricter standards of conduct in order to reassure the public of its ability to decide cases fairly, particularly those relating to former President Donald Trump.

“The highest court in the land has the lowest ethical standards,” Raskin said Thursday in a statement. “This mismatch is producing unequal justice under law in America. Behind closed doors, billionaire sugar daddies give Supreme Court justices lavish gifts and push through an extremist agenda against the rights of the people. The whole country is caught in a supreme ethics crisis.”

Read more: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/house-oversight-democrats-to-lead-supreme-court-ethics-roundtable_n_6661caece4b0c7a620db0f66

[GreenWave]

1. Yes and the courts slow walk most Trump trials yet raced to get 64 frivolous election recounts in.

[cstanleytech]

2. I think their arsenal is rather limited though without an Amendment to the Constitution.

One Amendment that should be implemented is that Supreme Court Judges are randomly picked from the pool of current Federal Court judges and the other is that they can only serve a single 9 year term. After that a new one is chosen and the current Judge is then retired and never allowed to become a Federal Judge again.
The next should be that changes to Federal districts for the States must be approved by the head of a special Branch who is a random Federal judge and then voted on by the House and it needed a 60% vote to do to. If House refuses to do so then it goes to the Senate can appoint one with a 60% approval and then if they to refuse to then the President can do it.
Oh and if the Federal judges declines they are removed as a Federal Judge.
The other Amendment is that the House should be allowed to remove a Federal official including the President without it going to the Senate if 85% of them vote yes because if that many in the House votes like that then you know there is a problem.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

4. Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

[Hermit-The-Prog]

3. 3 powerhouses taking on the Subversive Court.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

5. How is it possible that Leo, a right wing Catholic, has so much influence on our judicial system.

Maybe if taxes are levied on these networks twisting our Constitution all our of recognition, the justices wouldn't be so cowed by their puppet masters.