This Is Bullshit

Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President, and then subjected to confimation by the Senate. If confirmed, all bets are off. They are then a member of the Third Leg of the Government, and answer to no one, period. It's their job for life, do do as they please.

With one exception. If Congress does not like what a Justice is doing, they can impeach him or her, and if a guilty verdict is the product of the proceeding, then the Justice can be removed.

Aside from that, a Justice does not have to explain anything, especially the way he or she votes, to anybody. Period. Those that say bullshit stuff like "they should recuse themselves" are ignorant of the priveledges that the members of the Court enjoy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1..._lnk1%7C115730

The Bullshit started long ago, Jackie.

Uncle Thomas should already have recused himself and should be embroiled in an ethics investigation over his failure to list his wife's earnings as a lobbyist. Uncle Thomas, Roberts and Scalia should be forced to wear NASCAR uniforms with patches identifying all their corporate benefactors instead of black robes.

Gotta hand it to the Republicans and I said so at the time. Alito and Roberts were NEVER about "Roe v. Wade". They were all about bringing Fascism to America with Corporate control through Citizens United and future cases that will allow the purchase of deregulation and cartel-friendly legislation.

We just saw the Clean Air initiatives rolled back and it took a Herculean effort just to delay the Keystone pipeline until it will undoubtedly be passed in January.

We are headed for another BP-like disaster and a matching spill under that pipeline in the near future, not to mention the continuation of dirty coal and mercury-laden serial pollution of our skies, rivers, lakes, streams and oceans.

Even if some of you don't believe in "Climate Change" you should wise up and quit allowing repeat offenders to exacerbate what may have its roots in cyclical climate change.

I think some here would actually bail water INTO a leaky boat. I have a couple of them on ignore but "suicidal" fits their political philosophy. Still others don't care and think "The Rupture" will save them when they fuck the planet up.

Like Jesus would ever carry a gun or vote Republican - seriously.

Saying they "should" is different than saying they "must". There are certain cases where a justice should recuse him or herself, but they don't have to. It's a matter of ethics, not law.

Thanks for repeating what I said. Uncle Thomas is still a scumbag.

No problem. Glad I could help.

By the way, Elaina Kagan "should" recuse herself as well. Probably another scumbag.

Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President, and then subjected to confimation by the Senate. If confirmed, all bets are off. They are then a member of the Third Leg of the Government, and answer to no one, period. It's their job for life, do do as they please.

With one exception. If Congress does not like what a Justice is doing, they can impeach him or her, and if a guilty verdict is the product of the proceeding, then the Justice can be removed.

Aside from that, a Justice does not have to explain anything, especially the way he or she votes, to anybody. Period. Those that say bullshit stuff like "they should recuse themselves" are ignorant of the priveledges that the members of the Court enjoy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1..._lnk1%7C115730 Originally Posted by Jackie S

I agree Jackie this is BS and maybe we will push to change this. One can only hope.

Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President, and then subjected to confimation by the Senate. If confirmed, all bets are off. They are then a member of the Third Leg of the Government, and answer to no one, period. It's their job for life, do do as they please.

With one exception. If Congress does not like what a Justice is doing, they can impeach him or her, and if a guilty verdict is the product of the proceeding, then the Justice can be removed.

Aside from that, a Justice does not have to explain anything, especially the way he or she votes, to anybody. Period. Those that say bullshit stuff like "they should recuse themselves" are ignorant of the priveledges that the members of the Court enjoy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1..._lnk1%7C115730 Originally Posted by Jackie S

The operative word is "should". It's true that in some cases, a justice has an obvious conflict of interest and should recuse themselves. But it is completely up to them; they are left to determine what is required by ethics.

I guess the founding fathers didn't take into account the possibility that our national character could decline to such an extent that a supreme court justice may not be an honorable person.

Apparently Kagan was a cheerleader for Obamacare (based on leaked emails). There's no way she's going to recuse herself. Liberals have no honor.

The operative word is "should". It's true that in some cases, a justice has an obvious conflict of interest and should recuse themselves. But it is completely up to them; they are left to determine what is required by ethics.

I guess the founding fathers didn't take into account the possibility that our national character could decline to such an extent that a supreme court justice may not be an honorable person.

Apparently Kagan was a cheerleader for Obamacare (based on leaked emails). There's no way she's going to recuse herself. Liberals have no honor. Originally Posted by joe bloe

The left has always subverted the courts to get what they wanted. When law after law of the "New Deal" were ruled unconstitutional, Franklin the Red threatened to pack the court.

The right has to get over this idea of keeping the "moral high ground" and fight as dirty as the left does. The moral high ground isn't worth a damn if your country is buried there. "W" let the socialists fight and delay his judicial nominations way too long, if a real conservative ever gets elected the courts need to be packed, the state department emptied (like a can of garbage) and re-staffed and a multitude of departments closed (and outlawed).

The operative word is "should". It's true that in some cases, a justice has an obvious conflict of interest and should recuse themselves. But it is completely up to them; they are left to determine what is required by ethics.

I guess the founding fathers didn't take into account the possibility that our national character could decline to such an extent that a supreme court justice may not be an honorable person.

Apparently Kagan was a cheerleader for Obamacare (based on leaked emails). There's no way she's going to recuse herself. Liberals have no honor. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Show me a right wing tea bagger with honor and I will be amazed

Did any of you take a basic civics course in high school?

Perhaps you should read the US Constitution...Not sure why at this point in your life you are suddenly shocked by the law of the land for over 230 years.

Did any of you take a basic civics course in high school?

Perhaps you should read the US Constitution...Not sure why at this point in your life you are suddenly shocked by the law of the land for over 230 years. Originally Posted by tigercat

One minute they are holding up the Constitution as the Bible, the next they bitch about its contents.

Damn wingnuts are hard to get a read on!

WTF are you talking about, WTF?

One minute they are holding up the Constitution as the Bible, the next they bitch about its contents.
Damn wingnuts are hard to get a read on! Originally Posted by WTF

Double edge sword. You live and die by the sword you wield.

Federal judges are appointed with lifetime appointments to enable them to be impartial. They don't have to be elected, deal with all of the politics.

It is prety hard to get rid of one, rare to see an impeachment of a federal judge.

But it ain't going to be changed easily. Would take a constitutional admendment if my memory of 8th grade civics is correct. (With dementia, often the memory loss is selective, but I think I remember civics right, if I could just remember where my damn car keys are I might go get laid this week.)

WTF are you talking about, WTF? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Bible/Constitution, take your pick!

Double edge sword. You live and die by the sword you wield.

Federal judges are appointed with lifetime appointments to enable them to be impartial. They don't have to be elected, deal with all of the politics.

It is prety hard to get rid of one, rare to see an impeachment of a federal judge.

But it ain't going to be changed easily. Would take a constitutional admendment if my memory of 8th grade civics is correct. (With dementia, often the memory loss is selective, but I think I remember civics right, if I could just remember where my damn car keys are I might go get laid this week.) Originally Posted by tigercat

Sounds like these folks bitching about the Supremes are the ones with dementia

WTF, when did that come up? He simply said that the Constitution confers a lifetime appointment on federal judges. That's a fact. Maybe it needs to be changed. That's why we have the amendment process.