380
Gorsuch urged to recuse himself from supreme court case over ties to oil baron
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
380 points (98.5% liked)
News
37007 readers
2003 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Every one of the Republican nominated justices.
The joint statement that they didn't want any enforceable ethics rules was signed by all of them.
That means that, while not anywhere near as obviously corrupt and otherwise awful as the Federalist Society ones, the rest of the court is also against transparency and being held to a higher standard than a pinky swear, which isn't a great sign..
The joint ethics statement was a milquetoast pile of nothing for sure, but it was better than absolutely nothing and lets the Dem nominated justices point out that they believe in ethics with the chance to actually behave ethically while the Republican nominated justices can be hypocrites while violating ethics.
Before the joint ethics statement there wasn't anything to enforce because there wasn't even a clear expectation of behavior. Now that there is something, even if it is useless on its own, there is something in writing that could be used as proof that there are some expectations for the justices that could be used for a possible impeachment of corrupt justices.
A pinky swear is better than nothing when arguing intent, even if a bunch of justices signed it because there is no explicit enforcement of pinky swears.
Not really, since that's what almost precisely what they already did separately when they were sworn in.
To go through the trouble of affirming what you've already affirmed while insisting on no enforcement or consequences in response to a public demand for enforcement and consequences is borderline suspicious behavior..