156
Illegitimate court. If you can't conduct yourself with honesty, your rulings cannot be trusted.
Bold of you to assume that they care what the ~~plebs~~ people think
The interesting thing about the court is their power comes from our belief in their legitimacy. They don't have any repercussions if the executive and legislature completely ignores their rulings.
It’s a system of giant novelty checks and balancing said checking account.
And I got down voted for saying that distrust in the judicial system is becoming a bipartisan effort (following the Trump verdict).
Regarding the appearance of impropriety these facts are pretty straightforward.
If he recuses himself, he loses his voice in this case, if he doesn't, the supreme Court loses it's trustworthiness.
He chose, and he didn't do it wisely. Most people in power don't think of the consequences right up until the consequences and it looks to me like it takes a civil war for everyone to realize how badly they need trust in the system.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“Members of the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the practice we have followed for 235 years pursuant to which individual justices decide recusal issues,” he wrote.
The chief justice also rejected a request to meet with Democratic senators to discuss ethics at the Supreme Court, writing that doing so would raise concerns about separation of powers and judicial independence.
Democratic lawmakers have sounded alarms over ethics and impartiality after revelations in recent weeks that flags displayed outside two of Justice Alito’s residences appeared to back the “Stop the Steal” movement.
One, an upside-down American flag, flew over the justice’s front lawn at his Virginia home in January 2021 as the court was considering whether to hear a 2020 election case.
The second, an “Appeal to Heaven” flag, a symbol carried on Jan. 6 and associated with a push for a more Christian-minded government, flew at the justice’s New Jersey beach house last summer.
The court has been under increased scrutiny over ethics questions since revelations last year that Justice Clarence Thomas had failed to disclose decades of luxury gifts and travel from wealthy conservatives.
The original article contains 543 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The recently-appointed chair fillers (and Thommy the Traitor) care not a whit for justice. Only their payola.
this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
156 points (99.4% liked)
politics
19072 readers
5087 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS