but I don’t think political is the right word. Corrupt is more like it
I mean it’s kinda the same thing at this point, don’t you think?
You’ll find very few Republicans condemning any of the corruption happening in the White House or doing anything to curtail it. They’re all complicit, because tribalism trumps service.
Platner was simply accused of sexual assault and he was gone instantly. Trump gets caught admitting to it on tape and it only makes him more popular.
Also, I’m pretty big on oaths, so I cannot understand how you can take an oath to tell the truth during your confirmation hearings, and then lie during those same hearings. It feels like it should be automatically disqualifying from confirmation, and if it’s discovered later, then it feels like it’s fraud and they should be removed from their positions.
I think all but one of the conservative justices swore during their confirmation hearings that they would consider Roe v. Wade as precedent, or made other similar statements. If they truly viewed it as “precedent”, then they would never vote to overturn it. So, several conservative justices lied under oath in order to be confirmed. They got their job under false pretenses.
George Santos was expelled from the House for lying about much less important issues, and not under oath.
If any of us lie during a job interview about something important, and it’s discovered later, you can bet we’d be fired before we knew what hit us, and we don’t swear a solemn oath when doing job interviews.
I feel like the moment a justice votes contrary to what they swore to, either during their confirmation hearings, or even as part of their oath of office, it’s absolute proof that they were lying under oath and that they got their job under fraudulent pretenses. That should immediately invalidate their position, only to be reinstated if they can prove in court that their actions don’t constitute a lie.
You cannot give any trust to a person who swears a solemn oath and then breaks that oath (with the exception of a wedding oath, which is an insane oath that cannot be held at face value, imo). I wouldn’t trust an oath breaker to walk my dog if I had a dog.
If you automatically remove someone who lied on a confirmation, they can just ask insane or badly worded questions to catch someone in an innocuous lie and disqualify them
If you think that would work, then you could convict anybody of perjury in the same way. And again, I did say that it could be reviewed by the courts, which is the legal path we have to apply common-sense standards to unusual situations.
A PoP handbook states that members are expected to be obedient to male authorities, or group heads, and are expected to give 5% of their earnings to the group. Heads are influential decision-makers in members’ lives, weighing in on issues ranging from dating to marriage and determining where members should live.
During her confirmation I recall reading a number of reports that – to put it politely – indicate her husband has a great deal to do with her work; iow, that describe her as a “handmaiden” that is completely obedient to her husband, something she had said herself before her nomination. In the confirmation hearings she was questioned about this directly and forced to deny that her husband would be an influence if she were confirmed, but it was superficial at best. Outside the hearings, other reporting that took a much closer look at the husband revealed all kinds of sketchy links and obligations.
Which is to say that in her case the corruption is not primarily about money, it’s a weirdly toxic faith, and the actor/beneficiary is not herself, but her husband and his ties. Think Leonard Leo. It was strange and dark and labyrinthine and I’d have to look it all up again to describe it in any detail, but man that is some shady shit going on just behind her.
Excellent comment up top, btw. Well sourced, much appreciated.
This is a classic of one of my posts, but I don’t think political is the right word. Corrupt is more like it;
Friendly reminder, 5 out of 9 SCOTUS seem to have taken bribes:
I mean it’s kinda the same thing at this point, don’t you think?
You’ll find very few Republicans condemning any of the corruption happening in the White House or doing anything to curtail it. They’re all complicit, because tribalism trumps service.
Platner was simply accused of sexual assault and he was gone instantly. Trump gets caught admitting to it on tape and it only makes him more popular.
Also, I’m pretty big on oaths, so I cannot understand how you can take an oath to tell the truth during your confirmation hearings, and then lie during those same hearings. It feels like it should be automatically disqualifying from confirmation, and if it’s discovered later, then it feels like it’s fraud and they should be removed from their positions.
I think all but one of the conservative justices swore during their confirmation hearings that they would consider Roe v. Wade as precedent, or made other similar statements. If they truly viewed it as “precedent”, then they would never vote to overturn it. So, several conservative justices lied under oath in order to be confirmed. They got their job under false pretenses.
George Santos was expelled from the House for lying about much less important issues, and not under oath.
If any of us lie during a job interview about something important, and it’s discovered later, you can bet we’d be fired before we knew what hit us, and we don’t swear a solemn oath when doing job interviews.
I feel like the moment a justice votes contrary to what they swore to, either during their confirmation hearings, or even as part of their oath of office, it’s absolute proof that they were lying under oath and that they got their job under fraudulent pretenses. That should immediately invalidate their position, only to be reinstated if they can prove in court that their actions don’t constitute a lie.
You cannot give any trust to a person who swears a solemn oath and then breaks that oath (with the exception of a wedding oath, which is an insane oath that cannot be held at face value, imo). I wouldn’t trust an oath breaker to walk my dog if I had a dog.
If you automatically remove someone who lied on a confirmation, they can just ask insane or badly worded questions to catch someone in an innocuous lie and disqualify them
If you think that would work, then you could convict anybody of perjury in the same way. And again, I did say that it could be reviewed by the courts, which is the legal path we have to apply common-sense standards to unusual situations.
There seems to be something in common between all 5 of those Justices… but I can’t put my finger on it.
That’s 6. I was surprised by the number 5, being, as there are, 6 right-wingers on the court.
This one is just a bad look, not corruption.
It’s an obedience situation with that one:
During her confirmation I recall reading a number of reports that – to put it politely – indicate her husband has a great deal to do with her work; iow, that describe her as a “handmaiden” that is completely obedient to her husband, something she had said herself before her nomination. In the confirmation hearings she was questioned about this directly and forced to deny that her husband would be an influence if she were confirmed, but it was superficial at best. Outside the hearings, other reporting that took a much closer look at the husband revealed all kinds of sketchy links and obligations.
Which is to say that in her case the corruption is not primarily about money, it’s a weirdly toxic faith, and the actor/beneficiary is not herself, but her husband and his ties. Think Leonard Leo. It was strange and dark and labyrinthine and I’d have to look it all up again to describe it in any detail, but man that is some shady shit going on just behind her.
Excellent comment up top, btw. Well sourced, much appreciated.
Thanks, I’ll look at this side of things too and add her to the list.
i’m lazy at the moment but there’s a group that tracked the “totally not bribery” disclosures from the court and Barrett is no innocent
Oh wow, I’ll look into that and update the classic if I find anything. Thanks.
iirc, they found 3-4 figures total in gifts each to the 3 liberal justices and 5-7 figures total in gifts each to the 6 trump justices