168
Justice Clarence Thomas Acknowledges He Should Have Disclosed Free Trips From Billionaire Donor
(www.propublica.org)
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
168 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19144 readers
2116 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Seems like the only possible explanations are that he's lying or he's incompetent.
Why not both?
Mandate ethics standards, add in term limits.
I like the idea of a scheduled rotation. Let’s say, every two years, or mid year to give presidents time to get the hearings out.
Senate must begin immediate and expeditious proceedings for confirmation.
Finally, and most importantly, their robes must be tie dye.
Ethics standard: yes, absolutely
Term limits: the idea behind the supreme court's lifetime placement was meant to separate them from the immediate political atmosphere of any given election season (imagine the entire bench being Alito's and Thomases while Trump was in office). While it's obvious now that it backfired by instead ingraining one over-powered president's bullshit for way longer than anyone wants, I'm not sure if I agree that term limits is a "good" solution if we want to keep that intended level of separation. Maybe moving the judiciary to a self-contained governing system similar to the military that doesn't require allocation from either congress or the president, where a lawyer can become a judge can be appointed to the circuit court, etc, but congress could still oversee the ascension process with their own ethics comitee?
Tie Dye Robes: this is highest priority
If we replace a scotus judge every 2 years, they would individually have 18 year terms.
If we assume they’re experienced enough to actually be on the SC, they’ll be pretty close to retirement age anyhow. (If they’re 40, and that’s young, they’ll be 58 when they’re done.)
This doesn’t really change the slow nature of the court. What it does, is to remove unpredictable nature of appointments. Right now, we have a hyper conservative judge because McConnel played games and certain judges died at very inconvenient times. A consequence there is a SCOTUS that doesn’t reflect America at large.