SCOOP: New whistleblower docs show Jane Roberts, who is married to SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts

[BeckyDem]

Link to tweet

( Sleazeballs, each one of them on the right. )

[Bev54]

1. No wonder he doesn't want to speak with the senate.

[BeckyDem]

2. Exactly.

[Irish_Dem]

13. He's not protecting Thomas, he is protecting himself.

He is as corrupt as all the others.

[Bev54]

17. Yes, it is becoming very obvious, and now I am wondering about the rest of them

as well, seeing how none of them think they need oversight or ethics rules.

[Irish_Dem]

19. Yes it is now glaringly obvious Thomas is just the tip of the iceberg.

No oversight or ethics for any of them.

[BSdetect]

3. Ah, the swamp stinks.

[C_U_L8R]

4. Subpoena his ass, now

Roberts has plenty to account for.

[Bev54]

18. Have to wait for Feinstein to get subpoena power back.

[Marius25]

5. And all 9 Justices (yes even the liberals) said they don't support more oversight

The Supreme Court is not legitimate

[BeckyDem]

7. It should not be up to them, period. The liberals may be fearful of a conservative led review.

All nine justices, in a rare step, on Tuesday released a joint statement reaffirming their voluntary adherence to a general code of conduct but rebutting proposals for independent oversight, mandatory compliance with ethics rules and greater transparency in cases of recusal.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/9-supreme-court-justices-push-back-oversight-raises/story?id=98917921

[Alexander Of Assyria]

25. Agree with statement. Coequal and independent branches of government is all the statement says.

[Farmer-Rick]

32. The judiciary has always been under the control of Congress

As outlined in the constitution that the Supremes ignore.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour."

"The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Clause 8:
*No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

The Supreme Court is out of control because Congress is not regulating them. And because judicial review is a power grab that is not established by the constitution.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

41. Congress only has limited authority to grant SCOTUS jurisdictional issues...criminal, civil,

administrative law..etc. The clause gives the Supreme Court its standing.

Not regulation of its conduct or its powers, only removal of any judge by individual for cause impeachment. Otherwise the separation of powers wall will be breached.

The 3 Liberal judges signed the letter, I am unaware of any explanatory note saying anything else.

[Farmer-Rick]

43. That's not how the US Constitution reads

But it is how most of the corrupted Supreme Courts have interpreted it.

There is nothing in the US Constitution allowing for judicial review either and yet.......

By allowing for judicial review, they have taken on legislative powers of Congress. They are legislating from the bench. And yet that infringement is not questioned. So much for separation of powers. The court also takes executive power by reviewing executive policies and decisions that are not laws.

I read that text and it is very clear to me that Congress was supposed to have much greater control over the Supreme Court, except in judicial powers. But since Congress is broken, just watch as the 9 unelected judges accrue more and more power. The separation of powers has already gone away. The Supremes have made a power grab and have won.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

44. No. The clause has been interpreted by courts to be exactly what it is...jurisdictional.

[Farmer-Rick]

45. Of course the supreme court

Is going to interpret it to suit their needs. And by "courts" you mean the Supreme Court that benefited in it's power grab.

And I agree with you that Congress has no control over judicial matters that is definitely in the realm of the courts. But judicial review is a made up power that gives legislative and executive power to the courts.

I can read for myself and the constitution clearly gives Congress control over the Supreme Court except in judicial matters.

But I'll grant you that since Congress is broken, the end result, despite the made up power of judicial review, would have ended up in the same place.

It's reminds me of how preachers interpret the bible. They pick and choose the parts they like.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

46. Courts are mandated to interpret laws, it's their very reason to exist.

Much like farmers are mandated to grow plants!

[calimary]

49. Absolutely it should NOT be up to them!

Last edited Sun Apr 30, 2023, 03:31 PM - Edit history (1)

All nine issue a statement? Frankly, ANY “statement” that includes Clarence “the Crook” Thomas is immediately suspect, and needs to be regarded (and reacted to) that way.

[BeckyDem]

50. Yep.

I like this approach.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217872099

[Irish_Dem]

14. It is an illegal junta.

They should all be hanging their heads in shame.

[dchill]

33. They don't do shame.

[Irish_Dem]

35. The most learned legal scholars in the world are devoid of a moral core.

Yes. They would have to have a conscience to feel shame.

And they have none.

[dchill]

36. My take is that they're in the wrong profession.

But what do I know?

[Irish_Dem]

37. Yes the law is now completely detached from right and wrong.

The law is used to punish and control others.
And to protect the rich and powerful.

No common sense.
Not one iota of concern for the American people.

The Supreme Court pretends to come from a moral core, but it is all a lie and fake.
It is all politics, power and money.

School children being murdered in classrooms means nothing to them at all.
Women dying in hospital parking lots, not a problem.

The loss of our democracy and the installation of a fascist regime is fine with them.

Being bribed with $$millions and then ruling in favor of those rich crooks is fine
with them.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

22. It's not oversight that's the issue, it's lack of an ethical code.

Oversight is an attack on separation of powers, so the liberal justices are correct as well on oversight.

[Goonch]

6. 👇👇👇👁️

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

8. shady

[Comfortably_Numb]

9. Because of course. What's the good of a lifetime appointment that literally allows you to impose

your bought- and-paid-for pronouncements over the entire country, if you can’t parlay that into multimillion dollar payoffs? John and Clarence should take a bow. We are taking it right upside the head. Jesus, what a bunch of simps those morally bankrupt thug-ass, black-robe wearing grifters must think we are.

[Irish_Dem]

15. Lifetime job, no rules or oversight, and rich people offering bribes.

Huge bribes for decades.

And then instead of being grateful for the ultimate grift they have to stick
it to the American people as much as they can.

"Jesus, what a bunch of simps those morally bankrupt thug-ass, black-robe wearing grifters must think we are.."

[Comfortably_Numb]

29. They are smart enough enough to know that the cash teat will dry up if they start ruling against the

wealthy check writers. Explains a lot, doesn’t it?

[Irish_Dem]

38. You're a smart little cookie.

You are now an honorary member of the "snark and connect dots club."



Yes we now have drawn back the curtain behind the finest legal
minds on the planet.

And behind the curtain is a blank signed check.
Not a law book in sight.

That is exactly how the Supreme Court makes decisions.

[Comfortably_Numb]

40. Going.....going......sold---- for a relative pittance.

Soulless money launderers. Bribe in, decision out. When are the snark meetings? I don’t want to miss a single one!!!

[republianmushroom]

10. No wonder he doesn't want Ethic oversight.

!0,000,000 reasons

[ffr]

11. Great!

[Chainfire]

12. Come on folks, they are there to interpret the law, not keep it.

[Irish_Dem]

16. For those who make the rules, there are no rules.

[COL Mustard]

26. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who watches the watchmen?

[Irish_Dem]

39. We have created an evil super being class. They answer to no one.

King of kings, divine beings.

There are no rules for those who make the rules.

Now we know that no one watches the watchman.

[Irish_Dem]

20. What kind of professional group refuses to make ethical rules?

[erronis]

21. Here's a DU thread that doesn't force viewers to go to musk's rotten platform

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143067454

[BOSSHOG]

23. Has anyone checked

The semi annual Supreme Court Self review and recommendations on their moral lapses and lack of integrity report? Chaired by Sammy the rat? Chaired by Slappy? I “heard” they are top secret documents but you can find them in mara lago and on Harlan crows yacht.

[COL Mustard]

24. But there's no ethical conflict here.....

Nothing to see. Nothing at all. Move along, peasants.

[Botany]

27. So of the 9 we have 4 dirty

Thomas. Crow

Kavanagh. Who paid off his debts?

Gouache. Daddy big bucks of the law firm with
business in front of the Court buying his property
In Colorado.

Robert's wife getting 10+ million putting right wingers onto the Fed. Bench.

[The Jungle 1]

28. The Supreme Court is an open sewer.

[UTUSN]

30. Not new-new but worth hammering until traction happens. Thanks!

[aggiesal]

31. Shocked, shocked I say ...

[calimary]

34. Oooooooh, they do like that free ride on the Gravy Train.

Impose a code of ETHICS!!!

Immediately!!!!!

[bluestarone]

42. I could be wrong, but i'm very concerned that

THIS SC. will now rule on everything the RETHUGS want. Just to protect their own illegal activity. We'll see, i guess.

[ecstatic]

48. Right. Now that they're exposed, there's no need to continue the charade

of being impartial justices who will carefully consider all sides before making a decision.

[ecstatic]

47. So... 6 of the 9 justices are bought and paid for...

Yes, I'm going to go ahead and assume that each and every one of the "conservative" justices is corrupt at this point. They each have dirt on each other--it's the mutual assured destruction concept at work.

Time to start over. They might not have to face any consequences, but a corrupt Supreme Court has no mandate. Period. So what are we doing here?