Although I agree with this bill, the NYT calling it “strict new ethics rules” is a bit much. Reading the requirements in the bill itself, it struck me as legislating that SCOTUS justices do the bare ethical minimum required of most every other judge - in other words, it’s the type of bill that shows up when an organization demonstrates that it is incapable of self-policing.

What’s shocking is 100% opposition by Republicans to a bill requiring a Justice to recuse if a close family member receives a large gift from a litigant - literally, that’s in the bill.

How is this controversial? Senator Graham says why - requiring the court to act ethically will “destroy” the court. He’s saying, we don’t care if justices are ethical so long as they’re partisan.

Congress needs to step up here.

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Comparisons need not be fair. They just need to get it out there and it works. I don’t know how many times I’ve been discussing politics IRL when someone says, “Yeah, but the liberals do it to! Look at this!”

    My favorite:

    “Are you seriously conflating protests over racial discrimination with a takeover of our nation’s Capital in an attempt to overthrow the government?!”

    “They’re the same.”

    • teuast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Our side may have tried to violently overturn a fair election and install a fascist dictator in an insurrection that killed five people, but your side holds protests against racially-motivated police violence and some of those protests led to property damage, and that’s where I draw the line!”