Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 12, 2024

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) on Tuesday said they will be introducing legislation in response to the increased ethics concerns related to the Supreme Court. "Congressman Raskin and myself will be introducing forthcoming legislation to have the Supreme Court be subject to the same $50 gift rule that he and I are subject to, as is everyone else who are members of Congress," stated AOC.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Seems fair.

Not in the interests of Trump/Putin/MAGA, though. Don't want to make judges less bribe-able.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2024-06-12 10:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"It's the highest court in the land with the lowest ethical standards. These are the only governmental officials in the land who are not governed by a binding ethics code. There's no process by which we can hold any of them accountable," Raskin said.

"And so, we need to clean that up. And that's why we said we're going to start with something simple that the whole country will be able to understand immediately and intuitively," Raskin said. "We want a $50 gift ban for U.S. Supreme Court justices. They make $300,000 a year. Pay for your own lunch and pay for your own vacation."

Many people continue to ask how has our SCOTUS existed so long without any meaningful oversight or a codified ethics code established by the other co-equal branches of government. The answer has been the same one repeated far too often in these modern times where one party places its own power and ideological goals before this nation's unique history of respecting that service to our nation at the highest levels of government comes with the duty of placing the good of the nation above sheer politics and keeping one's personal life and business clear from even hints of bias or favoritism either given or received.

The final quote from Raskin is so simple and inarguably true: SCOTUS justices being paid $300,000 annually should always pay for their own meals and vacations just like the rest of us and every other elected government employee. If a justice wants to accumulate great wealth or wine and dine with billionaires, then leave the bench and do whatever one wishes within our current gift tax laws.

SCOTUS justices never should have been allowed to be the judges of their own actions regarding ethical concerns. A simple limit on the dollar amount of gifts they're allowed to receive should have been codified decades ago. But throughout our vast history, no justices to my knowledge were showered with millions of dollars of free vacations, homes, and travel like that bestowed upon current and recently deceased SCOTUS members. An employee can only serve one master and that should be the entity who employs them and bequeaths them with immense power and influence over every American through their interpretations of laws and regulations. We as citizens should demand no less regardless of party or politics.

#2 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-06-12 10:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

This should have always been the law.

When I worked for DOD the rules were even stricter than this.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-06-12 10:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I wish them luck. They're gonna need it.

#4 | Posted by qcp at 2024-06-12 10:27 AM | Reply

I wonder if they'll declare themselves above the law if this passes.

I mean, I don't wonder much, I'm almost certain the current SCROTUS will.

#5 | Posted by DarkVader at 2024-06-12 12:05 PM | Reply

If AOC hadn't already fought against allegations of her own use of taxpayer funds to pay for vacations, flights, etc. that are against the rules of her governing body, I'd be all for this and finally glad she is doing something that is worthwhile. But, unfortunately and as usual, liberals and their hypocrisy ruin everything.

#6 | Posted by humtake at 2024-06-12 12:57 PM | Reply

Uhh...what?

Without gifts, AOC would have had to purchase her own $35k ticket to the Met Gala, plus an additional $1k for the dress she wore.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the idea of this. I just don't think she sees regulations like this as being applicable to people like her.

BTW, iirc, I was always limited to $50 gifts from contractors when I was on active duty. I don't think I ever got more than a keychain or some other trinket.

#7 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-06-12 01:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

SCOTUS will probably call this unconstitutional.

#8 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2024-06-12 01:11 PM | Reply

I'm a Fed, we can't even have contractors 'buy us lunch'!
That is why we take an 'oath' to serve the American People
and their best interests...

#9 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-06-12 01:39 PM | Reply

"I just don't think she sees regulations like this as being applicable to people like her."

What in the world makes you think that?

You really think she doesn't know she is not a Supreme Court Justice?

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-06-12 01:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The GQP will never go for it.

Their ---- doesn't stink according to them.

#11 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-06-12 02:36 PM | Reply

Lindsay Graham has already stated Republicans oppose ethics and morality.

#12 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-06-12 03:09 PM | Reply

When I worked for DOD the rules were even stricter than this.

#3 | Posted by snoofy

When I worked for Lockheed we had to follow the same rules even though I didn't work for the government but a corporation and I wasn't on a government contract. Gateway was my customer and they had to get special permission to give the team baseball hats for pulling off a major successful project... Honestly I get the why but it was really ridiculous. That said there is no reason the SCOTUS shouldn't be following the same rules as the rest of the government. Suddenly you hit SCOTUS and you are no longer bound by them? Ridiculous. GOP will never ever go for it as long as their side has a majority. Frankly things are so ridiculous I am in favor of packing the court.

#13 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-06-12 04:21 PM | Reply

"Lindsay Graham has already stated Republicans oppose ethics and morality."

But Jackson just recently released her gifts from Beyonce equaling $3k. If liberals didn't have hypocrisy, they wouldn't have a platform.

#14 | Posted by humtake at 2024-06-13 11:37 AM | Reply

Jackson just recently released her gifts from Beyonce equaling $3k.

Yes. Reporting them is what you are supposed to do.

#15 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-06-13 11:43 AM | Reply

But Jackson just recently released her gifts from Beyonce equaling $3k. If liberals didn't have hypocrisy, they wouldn't have a platform.

#14 | Posted by humtake

If beyonce ever claims to have absolute immunity from prosecution, Jackson would recuse herself. Unlike thomas and alito.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-06-13 11:47 AM | Reply

SCOTUS will probably call this unconstitutional.
#8 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

My thoughts exactly. Since they're no longer ashamed of pulling new doctrine from their posteriors, the right flank of the court will just call these gifts "speech" and claim there's no compelling state interest in restricting the first amendment rights of billionaires who want to buy Clarence Thomas an RV. And since SCOTUS is an unaccountable rightwing superlegislature, nobody can do anything about it.

Thanks to a few thousand morons in Wisconsin and Michigan who couldn't swallow their pride in 2016 and vote for the only candidate with a chance of stopping this mess. You've ruined our country for a generation.

#17 | Posted by JOE at 2024-06-13 12:04 PM | Reply

Imposition of a $50.00 gift limit would certainly incentivize some justices to seek other employment!

#18 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2024-06-13 01:48 PM | Reply

It's very trlling that not ONE right winger here, even the trolls, will defend Thomas.

Everyone knows he is a corrupt pos.

#19 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-06-13 08:37 PM | Reply

So, let's say one of the justices throws a Christmas party and a guest gives the host / justice an $80 bottle of wine as a gift?

#20 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-06-13 09:33 PM | Reply

lets not pretend this isn't completely about Thomas being bribed openly.

hes a disgrace.

#21 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-06-13 09:35 PM | Reply

Bell- 50 dollars is reasonable.

people with lifetime appointments that pay 200,000 plus a year dont need gifts.

#22 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-06-13 09:38 PM | Reply

So, let's say a Justice gets several million dollars in gifts from people who are big Republican party donors....

Heffy don' care!

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2024-06-13 10:04 PM | Reply

"So, let's say one of the justices throws a Christmas party and a guest gives the host / justice an $80 bottle of wine as a gift?"

Why not $800? Or $8,000? Certainly Harlan Crow wouldn't show up with a cheap Dom.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-06-13 10:16 PM | Reply

Sounds reasonable. It would allow 90% of America to have the same purchasing power LOL

#25 | Posted by Tor at 2024-06-13 10:26 PM | Reply

"What in the world makes you think that? You really think she doesn't know she is not a Supreme Court Justice?"

Totally agree.

Gifts should be limited to Supreme Court Justices. Along with right-wing congressional and other appointed officials.

Left-wing congresspeople should be able to receive as much in gifting as givers are willing to give. 'Cause they're the good guys.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

#26 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-06-14 02:11 AM | Reply

"Yes. Reporting them is what you are supposed to do."

So it's not so much the value of the gift as the fact of reporting it?

If Someone bought Alito a new yacht, it's cool so long as the gift is reported?

#27 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-06-14 02:13 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort