Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Buckeyeblue

(5,491 posts)
Wed Oct 28, 2020, 07:45 AM Oct 2020

If Barrett doesn't recuse from election cases the House should investigate ethics violations

I suggested this a few threads but wanted to throw it out there for thoughts. I think typically such an investigation would be DOA but in this instance, given the timing around her nomination and confirmation (and recent comments by Trump and McConnell) I think it brings up interesting questions.

And I think given some of Thomas's wife's recent Facebook posts, he should have to recuse as well. And we could open an ethics investigation against him as well.

These types of hearings could lay the groundwork work for legislation to maybe change the way the SC operates.

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If Barrett doesn't recuse from election cases the House should investigate ethics violations (Original Post) Buckeyeblue Oct 2020 OP
Might be worth a shot Sherman A1 Oct 2020 #1
I already replied on the other thread... but I'll add this FBaggins Oct 2020 #2
Yep Miguelito Loveless Oct 2020 #3
But they would need a case to hear with this fact scenario at issue Mr. Ected Oct 2020 #7
A suit will be filed by the GOP Miguelito Loveless Oct 2020 #14
not after jan 20. mopinko Oct 2020 #8
I doubt it FBaggins Oct 2020 #11
Nope. It's explicitly in the Constitution, Article 3. Congress decides. lagomorph777 Oct 2020 #15
No it doesn't FBaggins Oct 2020 #16
I had understood the question to be about the size/jusridiction. lagomorph777 Oct 2020 #17
look at the constitution, the House really can;t do any legislation that effects the judicial system beachbumbob Oct 2020 #4
That's not strictly true FBaggins Oct 2020 #5
But on what grounds? Buckeyeblue Oct 2020 #6
Impeachment works for me. Fastest way to re-balance the court. rgbecker Oct 2020 #9
How is impeachment the fastest way to re-balance the court? dware Oct 2020 #10
Long shot for sure. I'm always hopeful. rgbecker Oct 2020 #12
Always being hopeful is good, dware Oct 2020 #13

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
2. I already replied on the other thread... but I'll add this
Wed Oct 28, 2020, 07:54 AM
Oct 2020

Guess who gets to weigh in on "legislation to maybe change the way the SC operates"?



Mr. Ected

(9,670 posts)
7. But they would need a case to hear with this fact scenario at issue
Wed Oct 28, 2020, 08:19 AM
Oct 2020

Those kind of cases may not just come along every minute.

Miguelito Loveless

(4,438 posts)
14. A suit will be filed by the GOP
Wed Oct 28, 2020, 10:18 AM
Oct 2020

should any attempt be made to change the court. It will be filed before a friendly judge.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
11. I doubt it
Wed Oct 28, 2020, 09:02 AM
Oct 2020

Not doubt that Biden will win or that we’ll control the Senate. But it’s unlikely that the balance on the court will be changed unless/until a conservative retires or dies.

I don’t think the filibuster is going anywhere... and thus, neither is the size of the court.

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
15. Nope. It's explicitly in the Constitution, Article 3. Congress decides.
Wed Oct 28, 2020, 10:21 AM
Oct 2020

SCROTUS can say anything they want, but they don't get to decide.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
16. No it doesn't
Wed Oct 28, 2020, 10:28 AM
Oct 2020

Article III gives Congress much greater power regarding inferior courts.

Congress has the power to change the size of the court... or in some cases the jurisdiction of the court... but they can't set up a system whereby they get to decide which of them can and can't hear given cases.

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
17. I had understood the question to be about the size/jusridiction.
Wed Oct 28, 2020, 11:13 AM
Oct 2020

I agree - Congress doesn't tell individual Justices which cases they may hear.

 

beachbumbob

(9,263 posts)
4. look at the constitution, the House really can;t do any legislation that effects the judicial system
Wed Oct 28, 2020, 08:01 AM
Oct 2020

and if they did, the SC would simply rule it unconstitutional

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
5. That's not strictly true
Wed Oct 28, 2020, 08:06 AM
Oct 2020

There's lots of legislation effecting the judicial system (actually... both affecting and effecting). They created much of the system after all.

But their ability to change the practices of SCOTUS itself is more limited by the separation of powers.



Buckeyeblue

(5,491 posts)
6. But on what grounds?
Wed Oct 28, 2020, 08:11 AM
Oct 2020

Any legislation would have to be passed by the House and Senate and be signed by the president.

The constitution doesn't say that the SC can't have rules under which they operate.

And while you may not be limited in removing a justice (impeachment) there may be other penalties imposed, such as fines, suspensions, etc.

Is nothing else, a good public shaming.

rgbecker

(4,806 posts)
9. Impeachment works for me. Fastest way to re-balance the court.
Wed Oct 28, 2020, 08:52 AM
Oct 2020

I hope to God the Democrats take both houses.

dware

(12,092 posts)
10. How is impeachment the fastest way to re-balance the court?
Wed Oct 28, 2020, 08:57 AM
Oct 2020

Where in the Senate do you see 67 Senators voting to convict and remove any Justice?

dware

(12,092 posts)
13. Always being hopeful is good,
Wed Oct 28, 2020, 09:13 AM
Oct 2020

but the fastest way to re-balance the court is to add 4 more seats to match the number of Circuit Courts.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If Barrett doesn't recuse...