Shouldn't supreme court justices be held to some sort of ethical standard?

[dockside]

They didn't purger themselves as they never said they wouldn’t overturn precident on prior cases.

What they said was disingenuous - that precedent was accepted. That wasn't an answer to the question. It was sidestepping a real answer in the hope that those asking the questions would interpret it differently from what they really meant. It's like being asked "Did you kill so-and-so?" and answering, "I was doing laundry that day." implying that you were too busy to kill so-and-so but actually not answering the question.

I hope congress people have learned to not let those non-answers be acceptable and to insist on real answers to their questions.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

What they said was disingenuous - that precedent was accepted. That wasn't an answer to the question. It was sidestepping a real answer in the hope that those asking the questions would interpret it differently from what they really meant. It's like being asked "Did you kill so-and-so?" and answering, "I was doing laundry that day." implying that you were too busy to kill so-and-so but actually not answering the question.

I hope congress people have learned to not let those non-answers be acceptable and to insist on real answers to their questions.

They shouldn't answer questions on possible future cases. Perhaps on cases they already done.

 

[HangLow]

Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett lack the ethical standard to be on the supreme court. When you look at the history of Supreme Court justices, they clearly have breached this standard.

I am not even talking about the justices that perjured themselves.

​

 

[Integrityrespec]

I am unfamiliar. Please elaborate.

I had to spent some time finding this article is a few years old. I think there is another article that explains more in depth and if I can find it I'll post it.
The basic idea is that if the left and a few senators wants to claim Gorsich and Kavanaugh lied to them about abortion precendent then why were they ok with Sotomayor's position in the case related in this article. It's as much a lie as the other two justices gave.

Opinion: Sotomayor hearings: Gay marriage makes its way into questioning

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links.

www.latimes.com

 

[Deuce]

I had to spent some time finding this article is a few years old. I think there is another article that explains more in depth and if I can find it I'll post it.
The basic idea is that if the left and a few senators wants to claim Gorsich and Kavanaugh lied to them about abortion precendent then why were they ok with Sotomayor's position in the case related in this article. It's as much a lie as the other two justices gave.

Opinion: Sotomayor hearings: Gay marriage makes its way into questioning

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links.

www.latimes.com

Paywall.

 

[NatMorton]

Who are not even bothering to ask what people want.

That your system is corrupt.

Um, are you really demanding that Supreme Court justices check the latest opinion polls before deciding on a case?

You're out of your mind on this one.

 

[NatMorton]

Ok, so liberals pass a full, blanket gun ban. All firearms, all confiscated.

SCOTUS just interprets what that law says, right? Since they have no authority to overturn it.

Do you even try to understand how the judiciary is supposed to work? Do you even care?

 

[NatMorton]

Post 72.

Your assuming that women do not have good reasons for having an abortion. Or even that fetus was of no concern to a woman.

Here is post 72. Please explain how you read this and managed to infer I implied that a woman would not have good reasons to have an abortion or that the fetus was of no concern to the woman.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett lack the ethical standard to be on the supreme court. When you look at the history of Supreme Court justices, they clearly have breached this standard.

I am not even talking about the justices that perjured themselves.

At the time of their hearings........what lawsuits were in front of the USSC regarding the issue in question?

What lawsuits on the issue were presented after they were seated?

Go ahead with your perjury fantasy anyways.

 

[soylentgreen]

Um, are you really demanding that Supreme Court justices check the latest opinion polls before deciding on a case?

You're out of your mind on this one.

How amusing that an american demonstrates once again they posses the ability to think up really stupid ways of doing things and then insisting it has to be done that way.

 

[soylentgreen]

Here is post 72. Please explain how you read this and managed to infer I implied that a woman would not have good reasons to have an abortion or that the fetus was of no concern to the woman.

View attachment 67400056

It is for you to answer why making abortion a medical issue lacks reason and becomes dogma. Otherwisw you are insisting no thought goes into a medical consultation.

 

[NatMorton]

How amusing that an american demonstrates once again they posses the ability to think up really stupid ways of doing things and then insisting it has to be done that way.

When NZ does anything of consequence on the world stage, let us know. You're a lovely vacation spot, but I'd advise you to mind your station. Politically speaking, your country is about as relevant has Grand Teton National Park.

 

[NatMorton]

It is for you to answer why making abortion a medical issue lacks reason and becomes dogma. Otherwisw you are insisting no thought goes into a medical consultation.

You're making even less sense now. It is not for me to answer anything. You made the assertion about what I implied. I'm saying you're wrong, and my words prove that your inference is entirely unreasonable.

 

[soylentgreen]

When NZ does anything of consequence on the world stage, let us know. You're a lovely vacation spot, but I'd advise you to mind your station. Politically speaking, your country is about as relevant has Grand Teton National Park.

No all your words prove is that you have no idea what you're even implying let alone saying. Obviously you have no clue about what is happening in the world if you think nz is not doing anything note worthy.

 

[soylentgreen]

You're making even less sense now. It is not for me to answer anything. You made the assertion about what I implied. I'm saying you're wrong, and my words prove that your inference is entirely unreasonable.

I am not interested in what ever feeble excuse you want to make. If you do not wish to recognise your own mistake not a problem to me. I am sure either I or others will pick up that same mistake again in the next thread.

 

[NatMorton]

No all your words prove is that you have no idea what you're even implying let alone saying. Obviously you have no clue about what is happening in the world if you think nz is not doing anything note worthy.

Then by all means, educated me. Please tell me about a few of those “worthy” things.

 

[NatMorton]

I am not interested in what ever feeble excuse you want to make. If you do not wish to recognise your own mistake not a problem to me. I am sure either I or others will pick up that same mistake again in the next thread.

Now you’re just getting boring.

 

[Fishking]

Uncle Thomas is the picture of bloated corruption.

^---If *when a Black man thinks a different way than a liberal thinks they should* was a post.

 

[Fishking]

Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett lack the ethical standard to be on the supreme court. When you look at the history of Supreme Court justices, they clearly have breached this standard.

I am not even talking about the justices that perjured themselves.

Because....?

 

[Rawley]

What they said was disingenuous - that precedent was accepted. That wasn't an answer to the question. It was sidestepping a real answer in the hope that those asking the questions would interpret it differently from what they really meant. It's like being asked "Did you kill so-and-so?" and answering, "I was doing laundry that day." implying that you were too busy to kill so-and-so but actually not answering the question.

I hope congress people have learned to not let those non-answers be acceptable and to insist on real answers to their questions.

No judge has, or will ever answer "I will never overturn precedent"

 

[maquiscat]

I'm still waiting on what these supposed standards are supposed to be.

 

[TOJ]

Thomas should never have been seated to begin with. He was unfit 30 years ago, when he squeaked by with a vote 52-48, and he’s no more fit to be on the highest court today.

And Coney-Barrett wouldn’t be an Associate Justice today if not for McConnell’s blatantly hypocritical actions.

Too black for ya, eh?

.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Too black for ya, eh?

.

Dumbass projection fail.

Grow up.

 

[TOJ]

Dumbass projection fail.

Grow up.

So, do you favor regular lynchings for blacks or just high-tech lynchings?

.

 

[element94]

^---If *when a Black man thinks a different way than a liberal thinks they should* was a post.

Only when they go beyond their role, like overturning legal precedent for reasons, I would guess, of power and money, meaning they serve power for money. Puhraise Jesus! We should all be forced to do what Uncle Thomas wants with our private lives because he is such a fine upstanding citizen, uncorrupted by power, money and political lunacy?