Clicky

Shipping News and Reviews

Opinion: H.R.1 has a hidden gem that may curb conservative SCOTUS judges

When Congressional Democrats drafted H.R. 1, they contained a provision Republicans refuse to enact because their support base will be held accountable to the Supreme Court for ethical (reading) violations.

If passed and passed, H.R.1 would allow Congress to set up a commission to establish a "code of conduct" for Supreme Court justices. Despite their undisputed power to control American society and government, high court judges cannot be held accountable for ethical standards.

Conservatives claim that SCOTUS judges adhere to a code of ethics "will serve as an open invitation for partisans of the Bundestag and Senate to lodge ethical complaints and false appeals demanding the retraction of decisions that they believe contradict their desired outcomes . "

They point to the Senate confirmation hearing for Brett Kavanaugh (which is drunk) as what will happen when the regular A Code of Ethics Commission will be established.

Conservatives claim they have already watched “This ugly and unconstitutional scene takes place in a transparently faked impeachment campaign against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. As an equal branch of government, Congress cannot set standards for the action of any other equal branch. "

However, the constitution allows Congress to oversee the executive branch – an equal government department: Partisan SCOTUS judges, according to recent history, must also be overseen.

For example, a year and a half ago Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Brett “I Like Beer” Kavanaugh met with the leaders of the religious extremist National Marriage Organization who were filing an amicus letter in the High Court supporting discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace , Lesbian and transgender because of religion. The lack of standards of ethics in the judiciary regarding SCOTUS judges received little attention, but it was still impossible to believe that the only purpose of the meeting was to beat up the LGBTQ community behind closed doors and in front of prying ears.

Fix the Court's Gabe Roth said that session violated Code 28, Section 455, which every federal judge in the nation must obey, and undermines the little confidence the average American might have in the High Court. Mr. Roth said:

"It is ethical mistakes like these that break public confidence in the Supreme Court. How does the average American believe that judges will reach an impartial decision when at least two of the nine meet with individuals to get a clear idea?" of how the greatest cases of the term should end? What did the judges think? "

It can be assumed that the two judges thought they were not bound by any code of conduct or ethical standards. You are after all SCOTUS judge with a lifelong appointment without any ethical control. H.R. 1 would change that and Republicans don't like it.

In 2010 there was a similar meeting, due to a lack of ethics, attended by the late Antonin Scalia and the still religiously extreme Clarence Thomas. The two judges were invited to a regular cooking event shortly before hearing the High Court's arguments in the Citizens United case. This highly mysterious confab is hosted by the Kochs and attended by all sorts of wealthy conservative realtors and overconservative corporate executives. Whether Thomas and Alito were instructed by the Kochs or Citizens United how to govern prior to hearing arguments is never disclosed, as the event is a secret, invitation-only strategy meeting.

And then there is Clarence Thomas. Thomas has openly appealed to anyone, anyone, or any religious group to bring a case to the High Court so that they can help the other Conservatives in the High Court, Roe v. Overturning calf.

In the same way that religion replaces a woman's right to control her own body, Thomas was very indiscreet in his crusade to use contraception because of religion.

It is unclear whether at any point in recent history any other High Court judge has publicly appealed to (religious) interest groups to find a means to overturn the established law that religious extremist Thomas believes is outrageous. But if there were a code of ethics or some means of enforcing 28 US Code § 455, Thomas would certainly be in danger of losing his seat in the High Court.

In the opinion of this author, everything contained in Article 1 is a necessity in order to bring order and equality to America. However, the concept of ethically holding Supreme Court judges accountable, regardless of political affiliation, is a critical necessity and long overdue. If this Code of Ethics and 28 US Code § 455 had been applied to the Conservatives of the High Court, there would be no decision by Citizens United that gives corporations and the dirty, rich domination of the rest of the population and control of the government.

Given that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and the incriminating evidence that at least half of the Conservatives have appealed to the Supreme Court before hearing cases that affect the nation as a whole – a commission they adheres to all other federal authorities according to ethical standards The judge must adhere to them, makes it crucial that HR 1 is passed immediately.

Audio engineer and instructor for SAE. Write a comment that supports secular humanist concerns and exposes the oppression of women, the poor and minorities. An advocate of religious freedom and especially freedom without religion.

Born in the South, raised in the Midwest and California for a comprehensive overview of America. it does not look good

Former minister, lifelong musician, Mahayana Zen Buddhist.

Comments are closed.