politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
I don't think the DOJ can take on SCOTUS. For that you need Congress
At the same time, Thomas is beholden to the same Federal Corruption laws that any other federal employee is.
I thought they voted that the scotus is not beholden to the same federal laws as other judges or other federal employees. At this point the only people who can hold them accountable is congress.
The judicial ethics code is self imposed by the Judicial Conference of the US (created by Congress), which does not impose those rules upon the Supreme Court. I do not know whether they have the authority to do so. The Supreme Court up until this scandal, had refused to implement their own ethics policy. And the one that they recently adopted is weak, both in terms of requirements and enforcement.
OK, I guess what I was thinking was their ethics policy which I recall being laughably weak basically saying if you are naughty nothing will happen. Thanks for clearing that up
Everyone has to follow the tax code.
The only thing Congress is needed for is to impeach and remove him. And since we know the chances of that happening are exactly zero, that makes them completely useless.
SC judges aren't immune to the law. The DOJ absolutely can investigate, arrest, and charge him just like they can any other citizen. Now, I'm not saying they will; I'm just saying they can. And if they had anything resembling balls, they would, and then Congress can then decide if they want a Supreme Court judge making rulings from inside a jail cell.
But this is the Merrick Garland DOJ, which means he's too afraid to mention Thomas' name, let alone investigate him. And we all know Congress ain't doing squat.
If he was found guilty of a crime, couldn't he then be removed from office? The Constitution says that they "shall hold their Office during Good Behavior". Surely being convicted of a crime would be the opposite of "Good Behavior" and disqualify them from office.
DOJ may not be able to do anything about Justices taking money from plaintiffs or other ethics violations, but they can certainly enforce the tax code.
That’s the part I’m interested in, I’df there’s really a tax issue. Maybe he really didn’t understand justices had to have ethics and morals, avoid corruption and conflicts of interest, and were just there to solicit gifts from plaintiffs, but how can he explain away if he didn’t pay taxes?
They have to get a referral from the IRS.
Source?