Senate Judiciary Committee sends legislation imposing code of ethics on Supreme Court to full Senate

[HARK!]

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to send legislation imposing a code of ethics on the Supreme Court to the full Senate floor for consideration.

The vote was along party lines, 11-10, with Democrats using their slight majority to muscle it through.

The legislation is “as dead as fried chicken,” according to Sen. John Kennedy, Louisiana Republican, who noted it won’t receive the necessary 60 votes in the Senate to pass or even be taken up in the GOP-controlled House.

Senate Judiciary Committee sends legislation imposing code of ethics on Supreme Court to full Senate

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to send legislation imposing a code of ethics on the Supreme Court to the floor for consideration.

www.washingtontimes.com

What a ridiculous waste of time. Even if the President signed it into law; the SCOTUS could strike it down as unconstitutional.

Maybe these guys should just open up the Constitution and read it, to learn about the separation of powers.

 

[JSRG]

What a ridiculous waste of time.

As far as I understand, all other federal judges have ethics rules they must follow. Why exactly should the Supreme Court be exempt?

Even if the President signed it into law; the SCOTUS could strike it down as unconstitutional.

This applies to every law passed. What makes this one particularly special? On what grounds is it unconstitutional? As noted, other federal judges have ethics rules, as far as I am aware those have never been found unconstitutional.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What a ridiculous waste of time. Even if the President signed it into law; the SCOTUS could strike it down as unconstitutional.

And who would bring a lawsuit to that effect, the Supreme Court? They'd be the only ones with even *plausible* standing to bring a case. The US Supreme Court does not take cases on speculation, only on "actual controversies" (that is a case).

Maybe these guys should just open up the Constitution and read it, to learn about the separation of powers.

The Congress has the greater power here, including the power to regulate the jurisdictions of the courts.

 

[NxNW]

What a ridiculous waste of time. Even if the President signed it into law; the SCOTUS could strike it down as unconstitutional.

They can't strike anything down until someone with standing files a lawsuit. Who would have standing?

Maybe these guys should just open up the Constitution and read it, to learn about the separation of powers.

Why would the GOP oppose ethics for the Supreme Court?

 

[ralliann]

They can't strike anything down until someone with standing files a lawsuit. Who would have standing?

Why would the GOP oppose ethics for the Supreme Court?

Because these dems simply want a way to control everything for their own means. Leave the separation of powers as it is. Install term limits to the elected offices, to curb the corruption

 

[NxNW]

Because these dems simply want a way to control everything for their own means.

Discouraging the Justice from accepting bribes is hardly "controlling everything".

Leave the separation of powers as it is. Install term limits to the elected offices, to curb the corruption

Ethics wouldn't affect separation of powers. Though I'd love to see an amendment limiting SCOTUS terms to ten years, and requiring 2/3 Senate vote to renew.

 

[ralliann]

Discouraging the Justice from accepting bribes is hardly "controlling everything".

Ethics wouldn't affect separation of powers. Though I'd love to see an amendment limiting SCOTUS terms to ten years, and requiring 2/3 Senate vote to renew.

Leave it alone. If any commits a crime Charge them and try them.

 

[adrianmonk]

Because these dems simply want a way to control everything for their own means. Leave the separation of powers as it is. Install term limits to the elected offices, to curb the corruption

Can you explain, how exactly a code of ethics would benefit democrats over republicans ?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Can you explain, how exactly a code of ethics would benefit democrats over republicans ?

Probably because the poster realizes the "Dems" on the SCOTUS have much bigger ethics problem than the "REPS" on the court so it would impact the "REPS" more. Or at least that's how I read that.

 

[ralliann]

Can you explain, how exactly a code of ethics would benefit democrats over republicans ?

Because they will use it as an excuse. Look at all they have ignored with Biden, hillary, corrupt doj etc. It is another power grab.

 

[ralliann]

Probably because the poster realizes the "Dems" on the SCOTUS have much bigger ethics problem than the "REPS" on the court so it would impact the "REPS" more. Or at least that's how I read that.

sorry Dems are corrupt.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Politicians talking about ethics.
I wonder if they will catch fire and burn when they vote for it.

 

[keith99]

Can you explain, how exactly a code of ethics would benefit democrats over republicans ?

Well, there is the obvious answer. All I will say is that it wouldn't have 30 years ago.

 

[Hans Blaster]

sorry Dems are corrupt.

Then why would the "REP"s be more afraid of ethics legislation for the Supreme Court?

 

[adrianmonk]

Because they will use it as an excuse. Look at all they have ignored with Biden, hillary, corrupt doj etc. It is another power grab.

Here is the text of the bill. What part of this bill will the Democrats use as an excuse to grab power ? How will this allow the Democrats to use this to grab power as compared with Republicans ?

From what I understand, other federal judges are already bound by these rules, so why would there be an issue with Supreme Court justices being bound by similar rules ?

 

[ralliann]

Here is the text of the bill. What part of this bill will the Democrats use as an excuse to grab power ? How will this allow the Democrats to use this to grab power as compared with Republicans ?

From what I understand, other federal judges are already bound by these rules, so why would there be an issue with Supreme Court justices being bound by similar rules ?

It does not matter what the text says. That's the problem with Dems. They violate the constitution as it is. They use these these things as excuses when they want power. Lockdowns, mandated shots . censorship. They think nothing of these things. Sorry to say, neither do their hardcore supporters.

 

[Arcangl86]

It does not matter what the text says. That's the problem with Dems. They violate the constitution as it is. They use these these things as excuses when they want power. Lockdowns, mandated shots . censorship. They think nothing of these things. Sorry to say, neither do their hardcore supporters.

So this is a power grab and unconstitutional and you know this without actually looking at the bill?

 

[ralliann]

So this is a power grab and unconstitutional and you know this without actually looking at the bill?

As I said, they ignore the constitution at will. What would it matter what it says? They are corrupt. You actually think, or pretend (whichever) they follow what is written.

 

[Arcangl86]

As I said, they ignore the constitution at will. What would it matter what it says? They are corrupt. You actually think, or pretend (whichever) they follow what is written.

Wait, if it doesn't matter what's in the bill, how is passing this bill a power grab?

 

[Hans Blaster]

It does not matter what the text says. That's the problem with Dems. They violate the constitution as it is. They use these these things as excuses when they want power. Lockdowns, mandated shots . censorship. They think nothing of these things. Sorry to say, neither do their hardcore supporters.

We're talking about judges, not executive branch officials.

Where are the "dem" judges violating the Constitution?