I think the issue is very highlighted.
I also think threatening something that you cannot do is very weak. You can say what you will do if you are given the power, which may drive up the vote. But an obvious bluff is not a winning move and is easy to see through. I’m not sure who that brings to your side.
No democrat in congress is seriously threatening impeachment. AOC mentioned it I think but pretty sure the leadership has said absolutely not.
That is different from saying this would deserve impeachment…which I think it does. Again, this just highlights how uninterested the GOP is in enforcing ethics and showcases their willingness to allow corruption as long as it benefits them.
I think I said the same thing upthread.
That’s a good reason not to bluff, not a good reason to do nothing. Investigating, subpoenaing, and making a presentation of the evidence you’ve gathered isn’t a bluff. It’s governing. Why do they even go into the capitol, in your view?
When did I say that they shouldn’t investigate?
I said that threatening to impeach him, right now, is a bluff because that cannot happen right now.
With that said, I’ve made my point and don’t need to be asked nor do I feel the need to explain what I imagine Congress does at the capitol.
<< removed by poster >>
What made the land useless? He bought a remainder estate in the mother’s house plus fee simples in two lots in Savannah GA for $133K. It wasn’t uncommon for people to buy land from a widow and leave her a life estate. I have no idea if $133,000 made any sense but assuming $133K approximates fair market value, I have no problem with it. Do you?
I have certainly seen wealthy family friends help fund a child’s college education, not sure I have seen it at the k-12 level but the guy is a billionaire and 40K might as well be $100.
Do you think these are impeachable offenses as some have said?
Does he do these things for all of his friends?
Agreed, I think that the two failed impeachment attempts on Trump actually helped him and the GOP. It may have mobilized some Democrats that otherwise wouldn’t have voted, but I don’t think it did as much on that side as it did for the Republicans.
And at this point, they can’t even make the attempt, as there’s no way an impeachment would make it through the house. If the Democrats controlled the house, then maybe it would make sense to do so. But without that, all they can really do is say mean things.
I’d ask the proverbial Court’s indulgence to take a quick glance at this previous post … of mine:
I think the SCOTUS Ethics issue kind of falls under the general rubric that I laid out in that other thread.
Like nearly everything else the LW wants to talk about, it’s perfectly valid, important, and the facts are on our side.
But the other side is SCREAMING that Drag Queens are called ‘drag queens’ because they’re all dragging your kids back to their dens of iniquity.
And a million other Pure Bullshit Stories that – jointly and severally – represent an existential threat.
How do you win … how do you even make progress … when the other side has 400,000,000+ guns to your head and has – er – the vastly more credulous half the country believing you’re their mortal enemy?
A Doper mentioned a quote – something like, “In a divorce, the asshole usually wins.”
I am still at a profound loss to figure out how to beat an absolutely amoral, and essentially horrible, asshole opponent.
So I think of the SCOTUS ethical issues in that context.
My nephew could use private school. Think I can get him to pay for that?
Or is it one of those things that it would help if I was a SCOTUS justice first?
I don’t disagree, and if HC had business before the court then this would be a much stickier situation. But I cannot identify a single issue on which HC and CT disagree. That might be why they are such fast friends.
So what HC interest has been given the benefit of the doubt?
I don’t disagree that this is not a great situation. But the court cannot be seen to buckle to political pressure and certainly not to political pressure from the legislature.
Like I said, I think undermining faith in the judiciary based on reporting failures rather than actual corruption is almost as irresponsible as undermining faith in our elections.
Well, one option is to join them. Become amoral and horrible.
But then everyone loses.
And that’s the problem, as you say, the asshole wins. They hold the country hostage constantly to get their way. They are willing to essentially destroy our economy, our government, and our country if they can’t rule it.
The way the GOP is acting is exactly what the founders were worried about when they had reservations about a democracy.
I still prefer the wording: living up to the rudimentary standards of ethics that other US Judges swear to live up to.
In the past, I’ve consistently been critical of Bar Associations, and state and federal attorney and judge regulatory and disciplinary organizations.
IMO, the silence of such organizations is awfully telling. Despite one poster’s efforts, I cannot imagine any group which is ostensibly concerned with ethics would approve of CT’s arrangements and behavior.
OK, I didn’t think you were doing a bit before, but this is genuinely really funny.
Yeah, Thomas’ (and others) actions clearly violate the principle of avoiding an apparent conflict of interest, are almost certainly a breech of normal judicial and civil ethics, and generally further undermine the public opinion of the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in making ‘politically neutral’ decisions (although that has never been true), but unless there is evidence of a specific quid pro quo there isn’t a case for actual bribery. Thomas could be impeached regardless of whether it would be possible of convicting him of an actual crime if there were the political will do to so, but the reality is that even if the House would vote to impeach, the Senate would not remove him, making the entire thing a circus that would just reinforce the belief by conservatives that they are under persecution. From a pragmatic standpoint, trying to impeach Thomas would be a lose-lose-lose proposition (politically, legally, and in public opinion) with zero upside.
Stranger
The short version of your post seems to be, “Fuck it…nothing can be done so do not try.”
I think you are correct on the outcomes of trying but this essentially tells us ethics rules are bullshit and attempts to hold people in power accountable is worthless. Let’s just give-up, no point in trying. With the failure of efforts to rein in corruption these people really have no concern whatsoever. It’s an open market to buy politicians and judges with no need for even an appearance of ethical standards or abiding by the law.
That is deeply disturbing.
I look forward to your proposed course of action.
Stranger
I am not sure but giving up and allowing this seems the worst route.