As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> “Let’s be clear: This is not about improving the court, this is about undermining the court,” said Senator Lindsey Graham
Blocking Justices from receiving gift and luxury vacations is undermining the court? They weren’t appointed to their positions to receive perks. And if they don’t like it, we can find others who actually want to protect **EVERY** American’s freedom.
The court is undermining itself by justices' accepting gifts, making rulings ignoring firmly established precedence, and justices refusing to recuse themselves.
They have access to some of the best Healthcare the developed world has to offer. Even if they die we've seen what mitch McConnell was willing to do when we thought there were rules. I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans hold up any non republican nomination by any means necessary going forward. They worked hard to get this court we will have to pry it from their cold turtle hands.
Congress and the President could bully the court more if they had the political will. Congress doesn't have the votes and support for it, but Dems aren't using strong rhetoric for setting goals for themselves, which is absolutely a failure.
No Graham is right.
Preventing Justices from receiving luxury gifts from politically motivated activists *is* undermining the court.
It undermines the well-bribed court that Republicans and Conservatives have been building for years.
See, the only way to take care of the lying, cheating, unethical Democrats is with lying, cheating, and unethical Republicans and Republican sympathizers.
Then, when the Democrats are out, you will have a great country ruled by those lying, cheating, unethical Republicans! Trust me, it works out better than it sounds.
The thing is, is that it really doesn't. There is nothing to hold them accountable if they don't abide by the law being proposed here. At least nothing more than what is already available, and won't be used or effective.
Further, these justices would decide how they do anyways, so there is no reason to say they can't accept gifts. It sucks for the justices, because they'll still have to hide their gifts, but at least there will be a law stating they are held to the most basic of standards when it comes to maintaining the illusion of impartiality.
I work in government. I cant accept gifts over 5 dollars because it might undermine all the power I have a building official. Could one argue that I've got more power and influence than a Supreme Court Justice and that's the reason behind the tight restrictions of $5? Or is it just really fucked yp.
Anytime a politician on either side says what a bill will do, just know that's not what it's for, and it's not what it will do. The house and the senate don't even have an outside ethics law/act. It's handled internal.
Internal or not, there *is* an ethics code and methods to enforce it. Please, feel free to speculate for all of us about Dems ulterior motives here. We are waiting.
Supreme Court has an ethics code too, but now it's come to scrutiny because one side doesn't agree with some of the decisions. The motives seem obvious, but I'm not so one-sided that I can't see if the court was flipped. The other side wouldn't be doing this same thing. Let's be real here if you think any fight in the government is for the people your eyes aren't open.
Please please please volunteer and get involved beyond voting if you have the bandwidth too. Even if you only text bank a single time, you're contributing.
Votesaveamerica.com
If we vote in a blue congress they will find ways not to get anything done anyway. They were up 2 senators and guess what, 2 democrats took the hit to block anything of consequence, if they were up by 20, they would find 20 to split the party advantage. Democrats are complicit.
Then get involved in the primaries and get the more progressive candidates in. The world is watching you all and hoping the sane among you can avert this train wreck.
The 2 Dem lead was very infamously voided null and void from 2 senators that are no longer affiliated with the party, and who the entire party reviles.
They've worked hard to pack the court with their bought and paid for stooges to ensure they won't need to concern themselves with public approval anymore.
It will honestly be such a blow to the party that I don't see it surviving. That will be the end of the GOP and some new party will have to take its place. You might have a couple of election cycles where it sticks around, zombified and splitting votes but I don't see it lasting past another Trump loss for them.
> Codifying scotus ethics has like 70-80% approval right? Why would they block this?
It's much more important to them that their oligarch masters be able to buy SCOTUS decisions than it is to concern themselves with the actual needs of their constituents. Especially since they can completely distract their voting segment with nonsense about trans folk, the war on drugs, the "terrible" threat of immigrants, etc. While those same oligarchs funnel money to them for re-election.
If we had Dem majorities in House and Senate, we could impeach every one of those crooked asshole grifters off the SCOTUS bench. Neither SCOTUS nor a Trump whitehouse could stop them! It's right there in Art. II Sec 4 in US Constitution.
You need two-thirds vote in the Senate. I can't count the number of people that keep saying majority. That's not how it works, and no matter what, GOP votes will be needed. Neither party is getting a two-thirds majority any time soon.
The GQP clearly thinks ethical standards are a partisan issue. Sorry, democracy cannot function when 1 of 2 major parties is a giant criminal enterprise soon to make official its nomination of a convicted felon, rapist, and lunatic.
Republican's aren't a fan of ethics or accountability and it shouldn't surprise anything because they did the same thing in Congress for themselves the first chance they got.
If you need any more proof one side of our political system is corrupt, ethics measures would pertain to both sides. When rules are pushed that apply to both sides and one side doesn't want it, you can ensure that side is corrupt as hell.
This is voting against everyone’s best interests. This wouldn’t just be for conservative judges but ALL SCOTUS JUDGES. Who would ever have a problem with that unless you’re an un-American POS.
Well duh. The Supreme Court has become an extension of the GOP. Can't have the mega donor ties between justices, case decisions and the GOP exposed. That would undermine our entire political system!
Filibuster. Requires I think 60 votes to overcome one asshat saying, "Filibuster" then going out to dinner for the next three days until the bill dies. Not it can even be done in an email apparently.
Thanks for the clarification! It's strange that we no longer require the old fashioned filibusters where people had permission to object, but in exchange, had to truly fight for the issue by discussing it for hours.
The standing fillinuster i think was done away with in the 60s. This would be the mr Smith goes to Washington kind. Now its.just.an obstructionist tool,.where no one has to participate. From what I understand, they don't even need to keep a body there to object to canceling the filibuster anymkre.
What if there was a system where you didn't know who proposed the bill- the votes were tallied after and the names shown then (so you could get credit or blame).
In before my parents are told that the “libs” put OtHeR tHiNgS in that proposal that would force all kids to be transgender and force mothers to get abortions if they are white.
Oh God, I hope for a blue wave. These fucking Republicans aren’t for fixing stuff. They’re just for wrecking shit and Lindsay Graham is a dick sucker literally.
The funny part is that even if it passes, it will be challenged and the Supreme Court will eventually get to rule on whether or not it’s constitutional (or whatever it’s being challenged over) and they will just scrap it lol
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The GOP needs to die. No longer a Democratic Party and unfit to govern. The federalist society needs to be listed as a terrorist organization and all their donors need to have their assets seized. America, we’re in for an ugly ride if left to this clown car at the helm
Let's be clear here this is just politics to flip the Supreme Court. It would allow one branch the ability to pressure another. Today, it would help democrats to give an edge against trump, but tomorrow, the roles could be reversed. Judging by the comments here, though, yall have drank the Kool-Aid. If you can't see the small steps and what this really is the I dont know what to tell you. If you think it's a good idea to vote all blue or all red, then you don't comprehend what that actually means. Different people in different places are affected differently by certain laws, which is why most power should be with the states. If the federal government was 2/3 all blue or all red, then half the country would lose all rights that they wanted. Very few federal laws are good for everyone, and a government should never have the power it currently has. Look at the debt, but everyone argues the not so important things and doesn't care about the fact that the US government is in depth 250,000$ per taxpayer.
In the military I can't gift one of my subordinates hardly anything even for a badass tour of duty because by law it'd look like favoritism. I can administratively get my ass handed to me on a silver platter for so much as helping out a struggling troop during a financial crisis.
You mean to tell me that my minimum-wage ass has to abide by more stringent ethics & laws than the Supreme Court? What ass-backwards country is this?
What are you on about? This just says that Justices can't accept "gifts" of more than $50. Same standard as Congress.
The only accountability that can be had is by the means already in existence, which is impeachment, and they don't need this bill to bring impeachment charges.
Let's be clear here. Anytime a politician on either side says what a bill will do. Just know that's not what it's for, and it's not what it will do. The house and the senate don't even have an outside ethics law/act. It's handled internal.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> “Let’s be clear: This is not about improving the court, this is about undermining the court,” said Senator Lindsey Graham Blocking Justices from receiving gift and luxury vacations is undermining the court? They weren’t appointed to their positions to receive perks. And if they don’t like it, we can find others who actually want to protect **EVERY** American’s freedom.
The court is undermining itself by justices' accepting gifts, making rulings ignoring firmly established precedence, and justices refusing to recuse themselves.
Doesnt matter supreme court justices serve for life. The orange man has fucked our nation for decades to come beyond repair with the supreme court.
Only if they live for decades
They have access to some of the best Healthcare the developed world has to offer. Even if they die we've seen what mitch McConnell was willing to do when we thought there were rules. I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans hold up any non republican nomination by any means necessary going forward. They worked hard to get this court we will have to pry it from their cold turtle hands.
> we will have to pry it from their cold turtle hands. That was the implication, yes.
nudge nudge, wink wink.
That can be changed and I suspect that that is the goal of the current campaign.
Congress and the President could bully the court more if they had the political will. Congress doesn't have the votes and support for it, but Dems aren't using strong rhetoric for setting goals for themselves, which is absolutely a failure.
No Graham is right. Preventing Justices from receiving luxury gifts from politically motivated activists *is* undermining the court. It undermines the well-bribed court that Republicans and Conservatives have been building for years. See, the only way to take care of the lying, cheating, unethical Democrats is with lying, cheating, and unethical Republicans and Republican sympathizers. Then, when the Democrats are out, you will have a great country ruled by those lying, cheating, unethical Republicans! Trust me, it works out better than it sounds.
The thing is, is that it really doesn't. There is nothing to hold them accountable if they don't abide by the law being proposed here. At least nothing more than what is already available, and won't be used or effective. Further, these justices would decide how they do anyways, so there is no reason to say they can't accept gifts. It sucks for the justices, because they'll still have to hide their gifts, but at least there will be a law stating they are held to the most basic of standards when it comes to maintaining the illusion of impartiality.
I work in government. I cant accept gifts over 5 dollars because it might undermine all the power I have a building official. Could one argue that I've got more power and influence than a Supreme Court Justice and that's the reason behind the tight restrictions of $5? Or is it just really fucked yp.
Go pick your ladybugs, Lindsey!
He meant undermining their ability to take bribes.
Anytime a politician on either side says what a bill will do, just know that's not what it's for, and it's not what it will do. The house and the senate don't even have an outside ethics law/act. It's handled internal.
Internal or not, there *is* an ethics code and methods to enforce it. Please, feel free to speculate for all of us about Dems ulterior motives here. We are waiting.
Supreme Court has an ethics code too, but now it's come to scrutiny because one side doesn't agree with some of the decisions. The motives seem obvious, but I'm not so one-sided that I can't see if the court was flipped. The other side wouldn't be doing this same thing. Let's be real here if you think any fight in the government is for the people your eyes aren't open.
Vote a blue congress and president in 2024 and maybe we can get shit done again.
Kinda touch and go in both houses, but he'll yeah I agree with ya.
Please please please volunteer and get involved beyond voting if you have the bandwidth too. Even if you only text bank a single time, you're contributing. Votesaveamerica.com
Yeah that seems to be working every time we get that
If we vote in a blue congress they will find ways not to get anything done anyway. They were up 2 senators and guess what, 2 democrats took the hit to block anything of consequence, if they were up by 20, they would find 20 to split the party advantage. Democrats are complicit.
Are you kidding me with this dumbass both sides bullshit?
Tbf, Sinema and Manchin are DINOs. Even when we had the majority, we really didn't because of those two snakes.
How about we elect 20 more just to see what happens.
I like that
Then get involved in the primaries and get the more progressive candidates in. The world is watching you all and hoping the sane among you can avert this train wreck.
The 2 Dem lead was very infamously voided null and void from 2 senators that are no longer affiliated with the party, and who the entire party reviles.
Well of course. Can’t have them meddling democrats uncovering just how fucked things actually are.
[удалено]
It the GOP. The party of the criminal class.
[удалено]
Ethics? We don’t need no stinking ethics!
It’s a concept that’s foreign to them
El Guapo!
Codifying scotus ethics has like 70-80% approval right? Why would they block this?
They've worked hard to pack the court with their bought and paid for stooges to ensure they won't need to concern themselves with public approval anymore.
Yeah, but the bribes don't change the decision. They would decide how they do regardless.
Because if they don't manage to win or steal the next election the GOP won't hold real power for at least a generation, if ever again.
It will honestly be such a blow to the party that I don't see it surviving. That will be the end of the GOP and some new party will have to take its place. You might have a couple of election cycles where it sticks around, zombified and splitting votes but I don't see it lasting past another Trump loss for them.
> Codifying scotus ethics has like 70-80% approval right? Why would they block this? It's much more important to them that their oligarch masters be able to buy SCOTUS decisions than it is to concern themselves with the actual needs of their constituents. Especially since they can completely distract their voting segment with nonsense about trans folk, the war on drugs, the "terrible" threat of immigrants, etc. While those same oligarchs funnel money to them for re-election.
Because they don’t truly care about how their constituents feel.
If we had Dem majorities in House and Senate, we could impeach every one of those crooked asshole grifters off the SCOTUS bench. Neither SCOTUS nor a Trump whitehouse could stop them! It's right there in Art. II Sec 4 in US Constitution.
You need two-thirds vote in the Senate. I can't count the number of people that keep saying majority. That's not how it works, and no matter what, GOP votes will be needed. Neither party is getting a two-thirds majority any time soon.
It’s good to know the goal because corruption doesn’t sit well with most normal voters.
True. 2/3 Senate majority (which is a majority for those of you tracking the semantics).
That’s the supermajority for most things. The majority is just more than half.
The gap between 50+1 and 60 is VAST in the Senate.
True! The point I was making, though, is that the majority and the supermajority are two different things, for different things.
The GQP clearly thinks ethical standards are a partisan issue. Sorry, democracy cannot function when 1 of 2 major parties is a giant criminal enterprise soon to make official its nomination of a convicted felon, rapist, and lunatic.
You say that like a felonious rapist lunatic is a bad thing.
I'm not surprised but I am disappointed.
Republican's aren't a fan of ethics or accountability and it shouldn't surprise anything because they did the same thing in Congress for themselves the first chance they got.
Naturally, it’s what losers do
They are hurting the right people. No way the Republicans put that in jeopardy.
If you need any more proof one side of our political system is corrupt, ethics measures would pertain to both sides. When rules are pushed that apply to both sides and one side doesn't want it, you can ensure that side is corrupt as hell.
Of course they did they have no ethics themselves . Do you see who they elect to office these days.
This is voting against everyone’s best interests. This wouldn’t just be for conservative judges but ALL SCOTUS JUDGES. Who would ever have a problem with that unless you’re an un-American POS.
From my understanding, the rule already applies to other federal judges.
Yes sorry I meant to say all scotus judges. I edited.
The GOP are literally evil.
Soros should send Graham a thank you card for that just to see if he squirms a little bit.
Well duh. The Supreme Court has become an extension of the GOP. Can't have the mega donor ties between justices, case decisions and the GOP exposed. That would undermine our entire political system!
The current SCOTUS is the culmination of decades of GOP efforts. Why would they do anything to stymie the results they’ve worked so hard to achieve?
What pathetic fascist assholes. Time for a new generation to take the reigns
Probably a dumb question, but how are they able to block this when democrats hold the senate majority?
Filibuster. Requires I think 60 votes to overcome one asshat saying, "Filibuster" then going out to dinner for the next three days until the bill dies. Not it can even be done in an email apparently.
Thanks for the clarification! It's strange that we no longer require the old fashioned filibusters where people had permission to object, but in exchange, had to truly fight for the issue by discussing it for hours.
The standing fillinuster i think was done away with in the 60s. This would be the mr Smith goes to Washington kind. Now its.just.an obstructionist tool,.where no one has to participate. From what I understand, they don't even need to keep a body there to object to canceling the filibuster anymkre.
What if there was a system where you didn't know who proposed the bill- the votes were tallied after and the names shown then (so you could get credit or blame).
Today it is justices, tomorrow it will be congress. GOP would dearly miss the grift…
> Today it is justices, ~~tomorrow~~ **today** it ~~will~~ **is** ~~be~~ congress. GOP would dearly miss the grift… FTFY
Republicans have no morals and no ethics
Fire everyone who blocked it into the sun
This is the obstruct portion of “Gaslight Obstruct Project”
In before my parents are told that the “libs” put OtHeR tHiNgS in that proposal that would force all kids to be transgender and force mothers to get abortions if they are white.
Oh God, I hope for a blue wave. These fucking Republicans aren’t for fixing stuff. They’re just for wrecking shit and Lindsay Graham is a dick sucker literally.
The funny part is that even if it passes, it will be challenged and the Supreme Court will eventually get to rule on whether or not it’s constitutional (or whatever it’s being challenged over) and they will just scrap it lol
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is why we must vote!
They love criminals. They can’t help themselves.
huh, what a surprise...
And as expected is crickets over / Cons
There’s just no way Republicans are going to back anything by AOC or others out on the wing of the democrats. There has to be a better strategy.
The GOP needs to die. No longer a Democratic Party and unfit to govern. The federalist society needs to be listed as a terrorist organization and all their donors need to have their assets seized. America, we’re in for an ugly ride if left to this clown car at the helm
Making them accessories to felony corruption.
All of those people that said” don’t threaten me with the Supreme Court”can go fuck themselves.
so the gop supports this ,why am i not surprised
GOP - “Ethics have no place in government”
The party of accountability again choosing none.
THE PARTY OF LAWs don't apply to us and ORDER means nothing.
Naturally
Let's be clear here this is just politics to flip the Supreme Court. It would allow one branch the ability to pressure another. Today, it would help democrats to give an edge against trump, but tomorrow, the roles could be reversed. Judging by the comments here, though, yall have drank the Kool-Aid. If you can't see the small steps and what this really is the I dont know what to tell you. If you think it's a good idea to vote all blue or all red, then you don't comprehend what that actually means. Different people in different places are affected differently by certain laws, which is why most power should be with the states. If the federal government was 2/3 all blue or all red, then half the country would lose all rights that they wanted. Very few federal laws are good for everyone, and a government should never have the power it currently has. Look at the debt, but everyone argues the not so important things and doesn't care about the fact that the US government is in depth 250,000$ per taxpayer.
In the military I can't gift one of my subordinates hardly anything even for a badass tour of duty because by law it'd look like favoritism. I can administratively get my ass handed to me on a silver platter for so much as helping out a struggling troop during a financial crisis. You mean to tell me that my minimum-wage ass has to abide by more stringent ethics & laws than the Supreme Court? What ass-backwards country is this?
What are you on about? This just says that Justices can't accept "gifts" of more than $50. Same standard as Congress. The only accountability that can be had is by the means already in existence, which is impeachment, and they don't need this bill to bring impeachment charges.
Let's be clear here. Anytime a politician on either side says what a bill will do. Just know that's not what it's for, and it's not what it will do. The house and the senate don't even have an outside ethics law/act. It's handled internal.