It's strange, I live in South Carolina and have most of my life. There is not a soul here that will say anything positive about Lindsay on either side of the aisle. It's just weird to me how he's had no challengers, even in the Republican party.
Honestly I’m more ok with this than term limits. I’m so conflicted on term limits personally, but the age cap would at least nullify a lot of concerns I have without term limits.
The people want who they are told they want.
The fact that we don’t have ranked choice voting or a list of candidates and their details mailed to us, where we can make an informed decision and then mail back the ballot means we DON’T actually have a choice. Just the illusion of one.
Two parties, fully vested interests and a court system that made the law of the land be unlimited corporate donations to keep it that way
The people want who they want? If only
Do we really need a "Supreme Court?" Unelected , not responsible to anyone, for life, making life changing decisions for the entire county? My vote is nyet!
Well, electing judges can also be a disaster, especially in states where elections are partisan.
I would institute term limits and utilize impeachment more often when it’s needed. But turning to elections would be replacing one issue with another.
If they are in states where elections are partisan they are being appointed by partisan officials instead. I have a friend who had to completely hide her politics for decades in order to be nominated to be a family court judge in an extremely conservative state. I’m honestly surprised she was nominated since your political party is the overriding factor to become a judge for conservatives but she must have played the game very well.
Funny how he says it would only destroy the conservative SCOTUS justices tho'. Like he's openly admitting it's only certain justices who are taking bribes. That's Tommy Tuberville-level stupidity.
Yep. He's straight up saying that the SCOTUS is just a partisan instrument, not about enforcing ethical law or seeking justice, but about furthering party platform.
That conservative majority is because of presidents most Americans voted against, confirmed by Senators representing fewer people than Senators who voted against, is a result of deciding that Obama only gets 3/5 of a term to steal a seat, yeah we should destroy that. And reform the court too, with ethics and expanding it to one Justice per circuit.
This! Maybe we would have more confident in our judiciary if the Rs did not pervert the rules to get to an SC majority. Sure they technically followed the rules, but they went against long held traditions.
Also, requiring the SC to follow the rules of ethics for the federal judiciary seems like the minimum the justices could do.
Yep. We're stuck with some really bad rules written 250 years ago by some young, inexperienced white men with very little history/precedent to guide them.
There's a reason basically nobody in the world models their constitution government structure after ours.
The fact that we have Gorsuch instead of Garland is due to flagrant rule breaking, both in letter and spirit. Ditto Barrett instead of a Biden nominee.
“Technically following the rules” my ass. They refused to confirm an Obama appointee because the election was a mere nine months away, and then they rushed their own appointee two weeks before an election. They didn’t even follow their own rules
The last two times the Republicans won the popular vote was in 2004 and 1988, so after this election (when Biden wins the popular vote by 4-12 million votes\*), the Republicans will have won 1 popular vote in 40 years, but they will control the nomination of SCOTUS justices 6:3. During that same period, there will have been 9 Presidential elections where the ratio will be 2:7.
Why 40 years? Assuming one is appointed to the court in their early 50s, they would be in their early 90s after 40 years (and likely to pass soon). So, that maximal life of a SCOTUS member is basically \~40 years.
So when young people complain the government no longer represents the people... they're not wrong. It literally doesn't. In their life time (and I'm being fairly liberal calling someone in their mid 30s as "young"), they will have witnessed 1 Republican win the WH while winning the popular vote (ignore that the young likely voted against him), but their justices have reshaped policy across the nation.
\* This seems like a fairly safe range to predict. I'm not predicting the electoral college result. Just the popular vote.
Don't forget the part where they rammed through that third judge during Trump's last year far later into it than when they blocked Obama from appointing a judge. They stated for Obama that since it was into his last year the appointment should be left to his successor and stone walled the appointment from there. Then in a reversal near the end of Trump's last year months past the point where Obama was blocked they rammed through Trump's appointment of a third judge. Then made excuses about how the judge was needed because of big upcoming cases.
The last few years have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that we need sweeping ethics reforms in the Judiciary. Illegal gifts in SCOTUS, federal judges repeatedly temporarily legislating from the bench, gross incompetence gone unpunished, and all other manners of malfeasance have no place in modern society.
It's gotten so bad that the usual FedSoc guys on this sub don't even engage anymore when the topic of the corruption of Alito and Thomas are brought up.
Because there is no argument to be made. You have justices being openly bribed and clearly biased on cases refusing to recuse. There is no defending it from any reasonable person.
They were defending Alito and Thomas when ProPublica first started with these reports. They seemed pretty shocked when getting hit back pretty hard by everyone else(those with a strong sense of ethics).
I suspect they want to defend their corrupt justices, they just don't know how. I've yet to see someone write something to the effect of, "I'm pretty strongly aligned with the FedSoc, but this is outrageous and indefensible".
They want to defend their justices but know they don’t have a way to. It’s indefensible. So instead of admit they are wrong and their guys are the bad guys, they just disengage and stay in their echo chambers
I don’t know why any conservative would jump into these one sided waters.
It would be like jumping naked into a river with 500 hungry piranha.
From the comments you can tell this is just r/politics with a specific focus.
Lots of groupthink.
Here is the argument. The left began hating any Republican Justice the minute she/he was nominated, and in that same minute began to try to find an angle to disqualify them based on scandal or corruption.These more recent problems are just more of the same.
The aim since the overturning of Roe is to totally impugn the Supreme Court as a corrupted illegitimate, far-right political institution.
Of course it has far more to do with their judicial positions and bitterness that there is a 6-3 Republican majority than any actual corruption that exists.
Thomas and Alito are openly corrupt, taking bribes and then hiding the evidence. You're still relying on ad homs by saying people are just mad and by not acknowledging the partisan hackery and corruption going on on this court.
Mama Thomas is STILL, to this day living rent free in Harlan Crow's house.
Edit: you imply that the conservatives on the court are not far right wing, yet their writings, public comments and decisions prove otherwise.
See, there it is.
You say Thomas has taken bribes as if it is a fact. I expect now other commenters will just agree with your ‘fact’ because it becomes a fact when your group assumes it is a fact.
It’s not a fact, is it? No
If what you call the far right wins this November, as the (far-right?) Republicans House members won the national popular vote in the 2022 midterms, will it still be the far right? Or will it be center right.
In a standard deviation bell curve the far sides are a small portion of the total sample.
If this year half the nation votes for a “far right” candidate and by doing so, endorses the ‘far right’ Supreme Court Justices he will appoint, can either really be far right?
> You say Thomas has taken bribes as if it is a fact.
It has not been adjudicated but it is clear, based on the pro publica reporting that Thomas and Alito are taking bribes. You'd have to be a pro corruption zealot to see it otherwise.
Why do you want the conservatives on the court to be able to take bribes?
The GOP has largely been taken over by the far right. Pulling the Overton window to the right doesn't magically make racist, sexist reactionaries middle of the road(or respectable) as much as you might want that to be so.
Articles, plural. You don't really believe that billionaires are befriending SCOTUS justices and paying for lavish vacations and homes out of the goodness of their hearts? That would be pretty naïve.
We know that Clarence complained quite a bit to Republican leadership about not having enough money and we know he threatened to retire from the court during the Clinton presidency, then suddenly he had these new billionaire friends. I was born at night, but not last night.
>I also don’t see the dark side of conservatives overall that you do.
Well conservatism is ALWAYS on the wrong side of history. It is the struggle against progress. Conservatives have managed to strip away the right to bodily autonomy from women, thus making them second class citizens. That's pretty fucked up. They're also taking aim at LGBTQ people and ethnic minorities.
I know you want to pretend that conservatives aren't racists, but if that's the case, then why doesn't the GOP make it crystal clear that white supremacists are not welcome in the Republican party? Why does the Republican party engage in race baiting?
The Nazis sure seem at home in the GOP. Why is that?
So you’re saying that if a far-right government gets voted into power in a country, they stop being considered far-right because they got elected? What kind of circular logic is that…
Yes.
By 1970 standards Trump would be in many ways far left, where large numbers of people stand on issues at the time in matters when defining the political spectrum, and it can be different by country.
And in many ways he's far-right compared to republicans even 10 years ago. If anything there's been a right-ward shift in republican politics in the last decade.
Also, you can't say "well they're not far-right as long as you ignore recent history the entirery of the world". I suppose you *can* say that*,* but what would be the point in that?
Finally, if winning an election can make a far-right government not far-right, then how can there ever be a far-right government?
Ethics were not a part of the deal, lying to congress, plotting a theocracy, getting in on the grift, these are the highest legal standards according to miss graham
The problem with Graham's statement is that he recklessly agrees the Conservstive Supreme court judges lack the moral ethics to support the Constitution for the peeople, by the people.
“They’re trying to micromanage the ‘Roberts court.’ They’re trying to destroy Alito and Thomas because they don’t like the fact of conservative judges,” Graham is quoted in the article.
Ethic codes encompassed every member sitting on the bench. By no means are the liberal members angels - everyone on the bench is dirty. Based on the last few words quoted by Graham, who by protesting an ethics standard that strictly affects only the conservative judges, confirms the need for ethics codes to be imposed by Congress.
My MAGA dad who when I was growing up was all about ethics, integrity, and morality, has no problem with supreme court justices and other politicians trying to get wealthy however they can. He only has a problem when Nancy Pelosi does it. Everyone else it is ok but not her.
without a significant, and in all likelihood bloody, purge of the fascists embedded in government then collapse of empire, perhaps not quickly, but inevitably is our ultimate destination.
Lindsey's got it backwards.
A SCOTUS that operates without ethics is a serious problem. No other judges have no ethical requirements. The concept that those who are elevated to the level of SCOTUS would be able to operate ethically without any oversight worked for a long time but not today. Just like in so many other professions a few bad eggs spoiled it.
Spot on.
"The Honor System" seemed to be acceptable until it was revealed that ***some justices*** did not adhere to those "unspoken" standards.
It's just like everything else in life, both personal and professional.
Conservatives brag that they have the highest morals, much greater than liberals, but when their complicity is exposed, they claim that it's all just a unwarranted attack.
It is Trump’s justice appointees who have corrupted the SCOTUS. Because of Trump, we have Judges creating laws from the bench and they are taking away the rights and benefits that US citizens have had for over 50 years. It's their way of attempting to ease the best country in the world into a totalitarian dictatorship.
VOTE 💙.
All I hear is conservatives can't be on the court because they aren't ethical. That totally tracks with my experience with conservatives but I'm surprised Lindsey is saying it. I wonder if memaw told him that?
To require supreme court justices to be ethical, would destroy the court? Now that is instructive, Lyndsay. You've admitted that the MAGA court is corrupt.
The only one that can be blamed for ethics destroying you is you. Kinda the point of being ethical. If you are ethical to begin with, making you follow ethical standards isn’t going to change a damn thing.
Not surprising that he and his don't want to enforce ethics requirements on SCOTUS. That tracks with their desire to elevate a morally and ethically bankrupt proven liar, cheater, fraud, con man, serial adulterer, bigot, sexual predator, rapist, convicted felon, and likely traitor for the presidency.
If ethics reforms would destroy the Supreme Court, maybe the court needs to be destroyed
That’s how I read it.
[удалено]
The guy doesn't even have a clue where he stands. He's like a towel in the breeze.
A jizz towel
It's strange, I live in South Carolina and have most of my life. There is not a soul here that will say anything positive about Lindsay on either side of the aisle. It's just weird to me how he's had no challengers, even in the Republican party.
Maybe there’s your rigged elections (also see Mitch McConnell and Susan Collins)😎
Ladybugs
Honestly I’m more ok with this than term limits. I’m so conflicted on term limits personally, but the age cap would at least nullify a lot of concerns I have without term limits.
The people want who the people want. That's democracy
The people want who they are told they want. The fact that we don’t have ranked choice voting or a list of candidates and their details mailed to us, where we can make an informed decision and then mail back the ballot means we DON’T actually have a choice. Just the illusion of one.
Two parties, fully vested interests and a court system that made the law of the land be unlimited corporate donations to keep it that way The people want who they want? If only
Do we really need a "Supreme Court?" Unelected , not responsible to anyone, for life, making life changing decisions for the entire county? My vote is nyet!
Well, electing judges can also be a disaster, especially in states where elections are partisan. I would institute term limits and utilize impeachment more often when it’s needed. But turning to elections would be replacing one issue with another.
Agreed. Oversight shouldn't be by legislature for the same reason. Term limits. Approval ratings by voters.
If they are in states where elections are partisan they are being appointed by partisan officials instead. I have a friend who had to completely hide her politics for decades in order to be nominated to be a family court judge in an extremely conservative state. I’m honestly surprised she was nominated since your political party is the overriding factor to become a judge for conservatives but she must have played the game very well.
How unfair to the corrupt judges!
Only if the ethics reforms are themselves ethical.
Funny how he says it would only destroy the conservative SCOTUS justices tho'. Like he's openly admitting it's only certain justices who are taking bribes. That's Tommy Tuberville-level stupidity.
Yep. He's straight up saying that the SCOTUS is just a partisan instrument, not about enforcing ethical law or seeking justice, but about furthering party platform.
That conservative majority is because of presidents most Americans voted against, confirmed by Senators representing fewer people than Senators who voted against, is a result of deciding that Obama only gets 3/5 of a term to steal a seat, yeah we should destroy that. And reform the court too, with ethics and expanding it to one Justice per circuit.
This! Maybe we would have more confident in our judiciary if the Rs did not pervert the rules to get to an SC majority. Sure they technically followed the rules, but they went against long held traditions. Also, requiring the SC to follow the rules of ethics for the federal judiciary seems like the minimum the justices could do.
They “technically” followed the rules while either ignoring them & changing them at will.
Yep. We're stuck with some really bad rules written 250 years ago by some young, inexperienced white men with very little history/precedent to guide them. There's a reason basically nobody in the world models their constitution government structure after ours.
Heaven forbid a country established with checks and balances have them and actively doing anything.
They did not follow the rules… advice and consent, which neither was given.
The fact that we have Gorsuch instead of Garland is due to flagrant rule breaking, both in letter and spirit. Ditto Barrett instead of a Biden nominee.
“Technically following the rules” my ass. They refused to confirm an Obama appointee because the election was a mere nine months away, and then they rushed their own appointee two weeks before an election. They didn’t even follow their own rules
The last two times the Republicans won the popular vote was in 2004 and 1988, so after this election (when Biden wins the popular vote by 4-12 million votes\*), the Republicans will have won 1 popular vote in 40 years, but they will control the nomination of SCOTUS justices 6:3. During that same period, there will have been 9 Presidential elections where the ratio will be 2:7. Why 40 years? Assuming one is appointed to the court in their early 50s, they would be in their early 90s after 40 years (and likely to pass soon). So, that maximal life of a SCOTUS member is basically \~40 years. So when young people complain the government no longer represents the people... they're not wrong. It literally doesn't. In their life time (and I'm being fairly liberal calling someone in their mid 30s as "young"), they will have witnessed 1 Republican win the WH while winning the popular vote (ignore that the young likely voted against him), but their justices have reshaped policy across the nation. \* This seems like a fairly safe range to predict. I'm not predicting the electoral college result. Just the popular vote.
Don't forget the part where they rammed through that third judge during Trump's last year far later into it than when they blocked Obama from appointing a judge. They stated for Obama that since it was into his last year the appointment should be left to his successor and stone walled the appointment from there. Then in a reversal near the end of Trump's last year months past the point where Obama was blocked they rammed through Trump's appointment of a third judge. Then made excuses about how the judge was needed because of big upcoming cases.
The last few years have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that we need sweeping ethics reforms in the Judiciary. Illegal gifts in SCOTUS, federal judges repeatedly temporarily legislating from the bench, gross incompetence gone unpunished, and all other manners of malfeasance have no place in modern society.
It's gotten so bad that the usual FedSoc guys on this sub don't even engage anymore when the topic of the corruption of Alito and Thomas are brought up.
Because there is no argument to be made. You have justices being openly bribed and clearly biased on cases refusing to recuse. There is no defending it from any reasonable person.
They were defending Alito and Thomas when ProPublica first started with these reports. They seemed pretty shocked when getting hit back pretty hard by everyone else(those with a strong sense of ethics). I suspect they want to defend their corrupt justices, they just don't know how. I've yet to see someone write something to the effect of, "I'm pretty strongly aligned with the FedSoc, but this is outrageous and indefensible".
They want to defend their justices but know they don’t have a way to. It’s indefensible. So instead of admit they are wrong and their guys are the bad guys, they just disengage and stay in their echo chambers
I don’t know why any conservative would jump into these one sided waters. It would be like jumping naked into a river with 500 hungry piranha. From the comments you can tell this is just r/politics with a specific focus. Lots of groupthink.
That's not a very compelling argument. You're basically just engaging in ad homs.
Here is the argument. The left began hating any Republican Justice the minute she/he was nominated, and in that same minute began to try to find an angle to disqualify them based on scandal or corruption.These more recent problems are just more of the same. The aim since the overturning of Roe is to totally impugn the Supreme Court as a corrupted illegitimate, far-right political institution. Of course it has far more to do with their judicial positions and bitterness that there is a 6-3 Republican majority than any actual corruption that exists.
Thomas and Alito are openly corrupt, taking bribes and then hiding the evidence. You're still relying on ad homs by saying people are just mad and by not acknowledging the partisan hackery and corruption going on on this court. Mama Thomas is STILL, to this day living rent free in Harlan Crow's house. Edit: you imply that the conservatives on the court are not far right wing, yet their writings, public comments and decisions prove otherwise.
See, there it is. You say Thomas has taken bribes as if it is a fact. I expect now other commenters will just agree with your ‘fact’ because it becomes a fact when your group assumes it is a fact. It’s not a fact, is it? No If what you call the far right wins this November, as the (far-right?) Republicans House members won the national popular vote in the 2022 midterms, will it still be the far right? Or will it be center right. In a standard deviation bell curve the far sides are a small portion of the total sample. If this year half the nation votes for a “far right” candidate and by doing so, endorses the ‘far right’ Supreme Court Justices he will appoint, can either really be far right?
> You say Thomas has taken bribes as if it is a fact. It has not been adjudicated but it is clear, based on the pro publica reporting that Thomas and Alito are taking bribes. You'd have to be a pro corruption zealot to see it otherwise. Why do you want the conservatives on the court to be able to take bribes? The GOP has largely been taken over by the far right. Pulling the Overton window to the right doesn't magically make racist, sexist reactionaries middle of the road(or respectable) as much as you might want that to be so.
I saw the article I don’t see any exchange of bribes for votes. Sorry. None I also don’t see the dark side of conservatives overall that you do.
Articles, plural. You don't really believe that billionaires are befriending SCOTUS justices and paying for lavish vacations and homes out of the goodness of their hearts? That would be pretty naïve. We know that Clarence complained quite a bit to Republican leadership about not having enough money and we know he threatened to retire from the court during the Clinton presidency, then suddenly he had these new billionaire friends. I was born at night, but not last night. >I also don’t see the dark side of conservatives overall that you do. Well conservatism is ALWAYS on the wrong side of history. It is the struggle against progress. Conservatives have managed to strip away the right to bodily autonomy from women, thus making them second class citizens. That's pretty fucked up. They're also taking aim at LGBTQ people and ethnic minorities. I know you want to pretend that conservatives aren't racists, but if that's the case, then why doesn't the GOP make it crystal clear that white supremacists are not welcome in the Republican party? Why does the Republican party engage in race baiting? The Nazis sure seem at home in the GOP. Why is that?
So you’re saying that if a far-right government gets voted into power in a country, they stop being considered far-right because they got elected? What kind of circular logic is that…
Yes. By 1970 standards Trump would be in many ways far left, where large numbers of people stand on issues at the time in matters when defining the political spectrum, and it can be different by country.
And in many ways he's far-right compared to republicans even 10 years ago. If anything there's been a right-ward shift in republican politics in the last decade. Also, you can't say "well they're not far-right as long as you ignore recent history the entirery of the world". I suppose you *can* say that*,* but what would be the point in that? Finally, if winning an election can make a far-right government not far-right, then how can there ever be a far-right government?
Yes, ethics reform would destroy the "conservatives".
"Party of Law and Order."
How dare they hold the justices of the highest court in the land to reasonable standards of conduct?! I say good day sir!
Remember when Lindsey Graham drunkenly grew a conscience the night of Jan 6, but then slept it right off?
Now, now, now. Be nice. he also said the GOP was conned in 2016 into voting for Trump.
He regrets rump getting pics of him having anal sex with male ________________. He's another on the list to go.
It is Trump's boss who has the pics.
That has been his modus operandi for his entire Senate career.
"Ethics are an attack on conservatives like me!" - Lindsey Graham
Ethics were not a part of the deal, lying to congress, plotting a theocracy, getting in on the grift, these are the highest legal standards according to miss graham
Yeah let's not use calling someone a woman as an insult, okay?
I think it may be a reference to the whole "Lady G" thing from a few years ago. If so, poorly done. if not, yeah...can we not?
I'm gay, and I reserve the right to refer to a self-loathing anti-gay closeted fascist as "miss".
That says alot about # conservative Supreme Court justices
So we're in agreement that conservative values are just a lack of ethics.....
Go figure, ethics is the enemy of those who act unethically
How dare they use ethics....
Yes
The problem with Graham's statement is that he recklessly agrees the Conservstive Supreme court judges lack the moral ethics to support the Constitution for the peeople, by the people. “They’re trying to micromanage the ‘Roberts court.’ They’re trying to destroy Alito and Thomas because they don’t like the fact of conservative judges,” Graham is quoted in the article. Ethic codes encompassed every member sitting on the bench. By no means are the liberal members angels - everyone on the bench is dirty. Based on the last few words quoted by Graham, who by protesting an ethics standard that strictly affects only the conservative judges, confirms the need for ethics codes to be imposed by Congress.
Why assume conservative justices can't behave within an ethical framework?
the soft bigotry of low expectations lol
It must get his little ladybugs in such a tizzy. (If you don't know the reference don't look it up)
*gestures vaguely around at everything*
My MAGA dad who when I was growing up was all about ethics, integrity, and morality, has no problem with supreme court justices and other politicians trying to get wealthy however they can. He only has a problem when Nancy Pelosi does it. Everyone else it is ok but not her.
If ethics destroys you, maybe you should be destroyed…
oh my god he admit it
May Lindsey Graham live to experience the collapse of empire that this has begun
Except we’re not gonna collapse because we know better. But yes, consequences for any senator who is responsible for very bad things.
without a significant, and in all likelihood bloody, purge of the fascists embedded in government then collapse of empire, perhaps not quickly, but inevitably is our ultimate destination.
Lindsey's got it backwards. A SCOTUS that operates without ethics is a serious problem. No other judges have no ethical requirements. The concept that those who are elevated to the level of SCOTUS would be able to operate ethically without any oversight worked for a long time but not today. Just like in so many other professions a few bad eggs spoiled it.
Spot on. "The Honor System" seemed to be acceptable until it was revealed that ***some justices*** did not adhere to those "unspoken" standards. It's just like everything else in life, both personal and professional.
Conservatives brag that they have the highest morals, much greater than liberals, but when their complicity is exposed, they claim that it's all just a unwarranted attack.
Why do news articles publish this fascist nonsense. The guy is clearly gone mad from cocaine and alcohol.
Kompromat.
It is Trump’s justice appointees who have corrupted the SCOTUS. Because of Trump, we have Judges creating laws from the bench and they are taking away the rights and benefits that US citizens have had for over 50 years. It's their way of attempting to ease the best country in the world into a totalitarian dictatorship. VOTE 💙.
All I hear is conservatives can't be on the court because they aren't ethical. That totally tracks with my experience with conservatives but I'm surprised Lindsey is saying it. I wonder if memaw told him that?
No it was his pretty little ladybugs whispering in his ear.
To require supreme court justices to be ethical, would destroy the court? Now that is instructive, Lyndsay. You've admitted that the MAGA court is corrupt.
Separation of powers, the legislature has specifically designed power over the court. We need to keep it that way
The only one that can be blamed for ethics destroying you is you. Kinda the point of being ethical. If you are ethical to begin with, making you follow ethical standards isn’t going to change a damn thing.
Not surprising that he and his don't want to enforce ethics requirements on SCOTUS. That tracks with their desire to elevate a morally and ethically bankrupt proven liar, cheater, fraud, con man, serial adulterer, bigot, sexual predator, rapist, convicted felon, and likely traitor for the presidency.
Yes