320

Roberts rejects Senate Democrats' request to discuss Supreme Court ethics and Alito flag controversy (apnews.com)

submitted 3 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday declined an invitation to meet with Democratic senators to talk about Supreme Court ethics and the controversy over flags that flew outside homes owned by Justice Samuel Alito.

Roberts’ response came in a letter to the senators a day after Alito separately wrote them and House members to reject their demands that he recuse himself from major Supreme Court cases involving former President Donald Trump and the Jan. 6 rioters because of the flags, which are like those carried by rioters at the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a member of the Judiciary panel, had written Roberts a week ago to ask for the meeting and that Roberts take steps to ensure that Alito recuses himself from any cases before the court concerning the Jan. 6 attack or the Republican former president’s attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

all 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 85 points 3 months ago

So all that stuff about the independence and integrity of the court was just big talk? Figures. I'm surprised his robes stay on his body at all with a spine like that.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

What?

They meant what they said.

They don't want any oversight and all the justices agree that they should be above every law.

You're confusing that being their ethics, with what an average non power crazed person who hasn't already obtained the highest standing in our legal system and is completely free of any consequences from their actions.

Why would anyone with the drive (or love of beer) to make it to the supreme Court would ever want to lower the amount of power they have?

Even RBG refused to step down when it was best for the country, because she believed she was that much better than any possible replacement.

That much power fucks with your head, even if a well adjusted person manages to make it to that position, they won't stay well adjusted for long.

It's why the whole lifetime appointment thing needs thrown out the window.

[-] Hegar@kbin.social 24 points 3 months ago

That much power fucks with your head, even if a well adjusted person manages to make it to that position, they won’t stay well adjusted for long.

Neuroscience supports this. Giving someone power causes changes in your brain that makes your brain less capable of empathy, closer to the brain of someone born with psychopathy.

https://www.npr.org/2013/08/10/210686255/a-sense-of-power-can-do-a-number-on-your-brain

https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/how-power-erodes-empathy-and-steps-we-can-take-rebuild-it

https://hbr.org/2015/04/becoming-powerful-makes-you-less-empathetic

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-empathy/201909/power-blocks-empathy

https://www.livescience.com/1128-mere-thought-money-people-selfish.html

https://blog.ted.com/6-studies-of-money-and-the-mind/

[-] queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 months ago

Saving these for when someone goes "but no rulers means no one to protect you!!"

[-] Hegar@kbin.social 6 points 3 months ago

Across time, space and cultures, to be ruled is to be ruled by villains.

[-] bazus1@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

"That time I got reincarnated as a Supreme Court Chief Justice"

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago

Eh, change the channel. I'm sick of Isekai.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 77 points 3 months ago

Stuff the fucking courts. Their "legitimacy" is completely fucking lost so we should at least have a good illegitimate court - right now we've got the worst of both worlds.. the court is illegitimate and it is sucking away our rights.

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 0 points 3 months ago

Way ahead of you, jack, Biden admin has confirmed 200 Judges and counting.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 44 points 3 months ago

These motherfuckers forget that asking politely is the compromise that benefits them the most. When it doesn't work, people look for other ways to depose with tyrants.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

It's good form to ask politely first. What comes next had better be good, though.

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 0 points 3 months ago

The senate does have the authority to remove justices, they just need some 17 Republicans to notice their ship is sinking.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Easier to find 17 who can be bought for less than the cost of losing this republic

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 23 points 3 months ago

Murder you say? Nay, good sir, I decline your invitation to jail, and reject your offer to appear in court.

[-] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

So, checks and balances are officially bullshit, eh? If they won’t allow themselves to be checked, then the other branches must balance them. That’s why we have co-equal branches.

These 9 people are supposed to understand the constitution better than anyone, it’s their whole freaking job. It’s clear that they’re high on their own power. This isn’t the first time the chief justice has refused a request from congress.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

No, the check and balance of Congress impeaching a justice is still valid.

[-] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 months ago

I'll say it again: since the SCOTUS intends to slow-walk a decision on presidential 'absolute immunity', Biden needs to announce RIGHT NOW that he's dissolving the SCOTUS effective 2 weeks from the time of the announcement, at midnight, intending to appoint an all-new roster of his choosing, as well as replacing all state-level judges, also of his administration's choosing.

If the SCOTUS, on the other hand, suddenly finds they do have the time to make a decision on presidential immunity before that deadline, well maybe Biden won't do it, after all.

[-] anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 3 months ago

While the president can't dissolve the court, according to the majority, the president can order them assassinated and be covered by presidential immunity.

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

There hasn't been an opinion dropped on Trump V. US yet. The arguments were only just over a month ago.

[-] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago

Exactly. Maybe I didn't propose the "right" action -- the entire point is that if the SCOTUS won't rule a president does not have absolute immunity, and is subject to the law of the land, then really ANYTHING is possible isn't it?

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the fundamentals of US governance. The President can't dissolve SCOTUS. He hasn't been granted that power.

[-] Argongas@kbin.social 3 points 3 months ago

No, but if he the president does have absolute immunity Biden could just have seal team 6 kill Trump and some of the justices.

Not that he would, but imagined the surprised Pikachu face on the GOP if Biden called their bullshit.

[-] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago

Exactly. The Democratic party needs to push the issue and make the GOP see that the Leopards can eat their face too.

[-] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

But Trump is currently asserting in court that he does have that power! Absolute immunity remember? Who are you to say, peon, that the POTUS cannot dissolve the SCOTUS? He has absolute immunity, remember? That means he has absolute power to do anything!

What I was trying to say is that Biden should call the bluff, and force the SCOTUS to decide right now. Why not? If the POTUS really does have absolute immunity, why not? Do you see the insanity this road leads down?

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Who are you to say, peon, that the POTUS cannot dissolve the SCOTUS?

Just your average joe who is able to read a few paragraphs. The federal government doesn't have any power not explicitly granted to them.

What I was trying to say is that Biden should call the bluff, and force the SCOTUS to decide right now.

It not a bluff it's an important case. They should write an actually well founded opinion that doesn't set up terrible case law for future generations.

Why not? If the POTUS really does have absolute immunity, why not? Do you see the insanity this road leads down?

You're operating under the presuppositions that it does have absolute immunity and I don't believe he does. As I said, the case hasn't had an opinion. And I didn't mention it previously but the state judge thing you'd mentioned earlier is also not in the power of the president.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/

Article 2 is the bit to read.

[-] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago

I would like to say, for the record, that I wrote that late at night, and my phrasing probably came across incorrectly.

It wasn't my intention to call you personally 'a peon'. I was trying more to adopt the voice, for argument's sake, of what an imagined President, using this supposed absolute immunity, might say to their critics -- 'who are you (out there, the people) to question my power?'

My apologies for it coming out the way it did.

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

I wasn't taking that personally, my point was that in America the sovereign power rests in the people (vs England in the crown). We hold the authority under which the government exists.

[-] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago

As it should be! I hope in the long-term, that is proven to be true.

[-] Bookmeat@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

Deal with it like you do with all unwanted institutions. Kill their budget and see how long before they're willing to talk.

[-] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago

I thought their budget was just people participating in their court cases who choose to give them "gifts as friends".

[-] Tronn4@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

And RVs

[-] bazus1@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

HOW CAN I FUEL MY MOTOR COACH NOW?!?

[-] Tronn4@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

It runs on thoughts and prayers

[-] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

it’s time he faces a mob

[-] Blackout@kbin.run 3 points 3 months ago

He rejected my invitation to brunch too, fuck this guy!

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

That brunch was delightful. He didn't know what he missed.

this post was submitted on 30 May 2024

320 points (98.5% liked)

News

22895 readers

3697 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world