this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
443 points (98.7% liked)

politics

18992 readers
2418 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Reminder that getting control of the house and senate could make stuff like this potentially get through

This proposal is not only one that expands the number of justices over time but alter things like the court's shadow docket, require justices to release tax returns, and more

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 111 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Requiring the HIGHEST JUSTICES in the Country to NOT take Bribes from Defendants or Plaintiffs depending on the case is DEEP STATE WOKE SOCIALISM!

[–] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (3 children)

They are gratuities, not bribes, DUH

/s

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Based on recent rulings you don’t need the /s

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They worked hard to take your rights away. They deserve a treat every now and now.

Judges can have a little salami

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

DO allow them to go through a lengthy process, complete with a mountain of precise paperwork, and a committee chosen by their peers, on both sides of the aisle, to accept any form of donation.

Why?

Cause they're gonna find a way anyway. That or literally just give them excellent benefits that basically equal the recent Thomas bullshit.

Basically I'm searching for other ways to reduce these issues to a minimum long term.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Most of the fix should be much simpler. Pay them each $600k, indexed to inflation.

That should make them pretty resistant to bribery. Your quality of life really doesn't improve much past that $600k point, even if you're maintaining two houses. (And the justices aren't representatives. They don't need a second house.)

But yes, their tax returns should be public as well.

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes but once you make that much, then amassing more money turns into a game of how you can fuck over the most people to increase your value. See: every billionaire in existance.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When all your planes come back with bullet holes at points A, B, and C, where should you add additional armor?

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Survivorship bias doesn't really work when there are no survivors lol

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Billionaires are a subset where they've already self-selected for extreme greed. Hopefully Supreme Court justices would be closer to a normal population.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago

Supreme Court justices have very little in common with average Americans.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

Our recent experience with Trump should have made it painfully clear that rich people can be bribed too.

So no, we don't need to pay them more. We need to send them to jail if the accept bribes. And the law that enables that should be passed with a note that it is not subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court.