the days of recusal are over.
that any of these judges will now choose a moral path is kinda out the window. the bubble has been burst, we now know this court is corrupt, and so do they... with little recourse.
Waaa? Didn't you read the supreme court's real official and super enforceable and cool ethics standards they published in response to Thomas's million dollar modest vacations?
I'm sure the upstanding justices will LEAP to follow their own guidelines. /s
They were more like suggestions than standards
There's six conservative extremists
I think we'll see recursals, because they can win without two of their votes.
And get to play up that they're not biased so the plebes stop complaining.
Personally I doubt it. While they don’t necessarily need every vote in the decision, recusal would reinforce the precedent that they have done anything inappropriate - not the tack they have been taking.
You gotta think like a Republican...
Not recusing now means people talk about the issue. And maybe something is done to fix it.
This just stalls so status quo can continue.
Like how Nixon created the EPA, it wasn't because he cared about the environment. It was the opposite. Congress was going to create an agency with the teeth to enforce regulations. So Nixon made the EPA and made sure it couldn't hold corporations accountable.
This recursal is just for optics so if people complain, they can deny there's even an issue.
Congress was going to create an agency with the teeth to enforce regulations. So Nixon made the EPA and made sure it couldn’t hold corporations accountable.
This is a bad take. There were already several federal agencies with some teeth, but their powers were hyper focused. The EPA was a consolidation of those agencies.
When the EPA was established and ratified by congress, it was super popular. It passed the house 401-21 and the senate 89-11. Being environmentally conscious was popular across the aisle. There were actually right wing eco terrorists if you can believe it (Ted Kaczynski). Under nixon, ford, and carter, the EPA saw massive expansions of power.
The reason the EPA became a bugbear of the right is Ronald Reagan. EPA was big government at it's finest and reagan hated that. Reagan was the super sellout to corporate America and Clinton wasn't a whole lot better with his "the era of big government is over".
ha, i didnt think about them just feigning recusals. of course!
what a bunch of terrible human beings.
Worse than that, they can all refuse themselves, prevent quorum from being reached, and force the lower court decision to be upheld.
But if the recuses himself then the oil baron would have spent all his money for nothing. Surely, this can't happen.
That would violate the oil baron's civil rights!
Would've thought naming my hunting bunker Eagle's Nest might make me look too villain-ish.
Weekends of dove shooting? If that's not a sign of who these people are, idk what is.
Meet me at at my mansion, bring a 12 gauge, we're gonna go blow away the international symbol of peace. We can keep warm next to the olive branch bonfire. Fuckin hell.
Sorry. The American Mullahs never miss a vote, especially when it's in their best interest.
EAGLES fucking NEST
Does it have to be more on the nose than that?!
After visiting it, I’ve found there’s a surprising number of places called that.
I'm sure they had a heil of a time.
Kangaroo Court. Every one of them is compromised and illegitimate.
Every one of the Republican nominated justices.
The joint statement that they didn't want any enforceable ethics rules was signed by all of them.
That means that, while not anywhere near as obviously corrupt and otherwise awful as the Federalist Society ones, the rest of the court is also against transparency and being held to a higher standard than a pinky swear, which isn't a great sign..
The joint ethics statement was a milquetoast pile of nothing for sure, but it was better than absolutely nothing and lets the Dem nominated justices point out that they believe in ethics with the chance to actually behave ethically while the Republican nominated justices can be hypocrites while violating ethics.
Before the joint ethics statement there wasn't anything to enforce because there wasn't even a clear expectation of behavior. Now that there is something, even if it is useless on its own, there is something in writing that could be used as proof that there are some expectations for the justices that could be used for a possible impeachment of corrupt justices.
A pinky swear is better than nothing when arguing intent, even if a bunch of justices signed it because there is no explicit enforcement of pinky swears.
A pinky swear is better than nothing when arguing intent, even if a bunch of justices signed it because there is no explicit enforcement
Not really, since that's what almost precisely what they already did separately when they were sworn in.
To go through the trouble of affirming what you've already affirmed while insisting on no enforcement or consequences in response to a public demand for enforcement and consequences is borderline suspicious behavior..
Chi chi chi Chip and Dale! Recuse rangers... Ah I miss that cartoon!
Yeah not looking forward to Gorsuch's opinion on this case:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/roots-limits-gorsuchs-views-chevron-deference/
Chevron deference was a good idea but its been abused and its time for it to be reigned in.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.