The SC is losing all integrity and respect within a small window of time. Pitiful how self serving that group has been exposed to be… Disgusting. Sell outs almost across the board the newbies are….Or, it does. Thomas', and apparently Gorsuch's, alleged integrity issues don't shine poorly on him. He should have no motivation to obfuscate ethical reforms, one would thing the Chief Justice would welcome them.....unless he has motivation otherwise.
FifyThe SC is losing all integrity and respect within a small window of time among a small number of people who seem to be losing cases. Pitiful how self serving that group has been exposed to be… Disgusting. Sell outs almost across the board the newbies are….
Dumbass, don’t put words in my mouth (post). (FIFY)The SC is populated with sellouts and self servers.Fify
I guess that’s why all 9 justices are unified in their position here.Dumbass, don’t put words in my mouth (post). (FIFY)The SC is populated with sellouts and self servers.
That is yet to be seen over the coming days. The court is going to have a reckoning. The sellouts are being exposed.I guess that’s why all 9 justices are unified in their position here.
Ok then, when is the last time the chief testified before congress. I’ll wait.
Answer: chiefs don’t testify before congress because they are a coequal branch of government. Full stop.When was the last time multiple SC justices were embroiled in controversy?
Quite frankly, it SHOULDN’T be absurd to occasionally have a justice testify before Congress. That they don’t again speaks to the lack of oversight on the SC
The paintings of the war vets were actually his hit list.He is evil in my mind which makes his weird corgi paintings seem dark as hell.
So you and Goldy are not going to even try to defend it but instead try to blame Democrats. Typical for both of you.It's kind of weird that over the last few days there has been a post on this board about, Clarence Thomas, then Neil Gorsuch and now John Roberts. It's almost like the leftists are trying to destroy the only real American branch of government left. Funny how no posts on the leftists on the count. I know, weird, right?
Does that prevent him or any other Justice from testifying?Answer: chiefs don’t testify before congress because they are a coequal branch of government. Full stop.
And they have no ethics responsibilities. Assholes who tend now to be self serving.Answer: chiefs don’t testify before congress because they are a coequal branch of government. Full stop.
Disgusting turn of the court. They then lecture about civil rights. Sellouts.And they have no ethics responsibilities. Assholes who tend now to be self serving.
Nasty, disgusting self indulgent assholes, whom we all assumed were out for the public good. The court was presumed to be above the law. Sellouts. Assholes.It's really kind of funny. Roberts has always presented himself as the "good conservative" on the SC. Now we he's showing up as just as bent as the other 5. It's a den of thieves.
Given the timing, seems like a deflection.Thankfully the mystery has been solved. When will the perp be brought to Justice?
Thankfully the mystery has been solved. When will the perp be brought to Justice?
That's weird, members of the executive branch (another coequal branch of government) testify before Congress all the time.Answer: chiefs don’t testify before congress because they are a coequal branch of government. Full stop.
You're arguing with a groupie.That's weird, members of the executive branch (another coequal branch of government) testify before Congress all the time.
Just because they don't, doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't if the circumstances call for it. and imo, right now, they do.
I’m not sure what your point is.Nasty, disgusting self indulgent assholes, whom we all assumed were out for the public good. The court was presumed to be above the law. Sellouts. Assholes.
Ruth Ginsberg would be pissed.
The SC is exposed as sellouts.
That's weird, members of the executive branch (another coequal branch of government) testify before Congress all the time.
Just because they don't, doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't if the circumstances call for it. and imo, right now, they do.
Goldie white knighting Abby.That’s all you’ve got?
That should be remedied and is an obvious failing of our constitution. Age limits should be imposed as well in all branches of the government.There are procedures to remove the Executive and members of each branch of Congress, unlike SC Justices
There are procedures to remove the Executive and members of each branch of Congress, unlike SC Justices
Bush was either an idiot with bad advisors or evil. One of those two things is true.
Every one of these mf'ers needs to be impeached. The Supreme Court is a joke and it is laughable to listen to the protest about how the court still has legitimacy.
It does seem like you fascists love your easily corruptible politicians and judgesIt's kind of weird that over the last few days there has been a post on this board about, Clarence Thomas, then Neil Gorsuch and now John Roberts. It's almost like the leftists are trying to destroy the only real American branch of government left. Funny how no posts on the leftists on the count. I know, weird, right?
Controversy or political hit jobs by our lovely media?When was the last time multiple SC justices were embroiled in controversy?
Quite frankly, it SHOULDN’T be absurd to occasionally have a justice testify before Congress. That they don’t again speaks to the lack of oversight on the SC
Controversy or political hit jobs by our lovely media?
LOL. Look what's roused the Federalist Society Chatbot from the usual technobabble! What a surprise! How appropriate!Honestly, give it up.
Believe it or not, legal headhunters get paid by law firms on commissions. And handsome commissions at that when it comes to BigLaw. In house legal departments don't need them as much.
Oh, and by the way, I'd love to understand that "firms that had business before the court" qualifier and how it worked.
Lol, you think this is only happening with the conservative justices? I shouldn’t have called them but hit jobs but more like selective reporting. Per usual from the drive by media.What parts of these stories are false? Hit jobs usually imply that some or all of a story is fabricated.
Lol, you think this is only happening with the conservative justices? I shouldn’t have called them but hit jobs but more like selective reporting. Per usual from the drive by media.
The are plenty of right wing media sources out there. Find and post an article from one of them impugning the character and questioning the ethics of one of the liberal justices. TIA.Lol, you think this is only happening with the conservative justices? I shouldn’t have called them but hit jobs but more like selective reporting. Per usual from the drive by media.
"Legal Recruiter". LOL. Just doing the regular 9 to 5.I have to say, I really don’t have an issue with this one. Is Roberts’ wife not allowed to work as a legal recruiter because her husband is a Supreme Court justice?
$1.25 million per year is not an excessive number for a head-hunter for elite law firms. Far from it, actually. At the high end, legal recruiters can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal commissions on a single placement."Legal Recruiter". LOL. Just doing the regular 9 to 5.
The guy's wife traded on his status to cash in on over $10 million with law firms involved in litigation before the court.
It's just flat-out influence peddling, Corrupt as hell and disgusting. Abe Fortas was hounded off the court 50 years ago for far less. If there are examples of perceived "lib" justices involved in the same type of grifting, eff them as well.