In #Ukraine, the Chief Justice is not above the law and can be prosecuted for corruption without the need for an impeachment vote... Isn't it time our own corrupt justices were held accountable? We need an enforceable #scotus #ethics code.
Ukraine Supreme Court head held in corruption probe - BBC News https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65610985
Why skip the democratic process of the impeachment vote?
Impeachment is there specifically to hold officials like justices accountable.
It's the only way to enforce accountability without sacrificing judicial independence.
@volkris
In theory. But in practice, in our hyper-polarized partisan system, the #gop would protect any of its pet "justices" no matter what evidence against them exists. One of our parties doesn't play by the "ideal" rules anymore, and to keep pretending otherwise is unrealistic. We need to apply the same enforceable ethics rules to justices as apply to all other federal employees, with consequences that skip the political football arena. And term limits.
Again you're overlooking the democracy part of the system.
Voters are very polarized, so we elect polarized representatives to represent our polarization.
There is not consensus throughout the country that any justice has misbehaved to the point of needing to be removed, so the democratic process reflects that by declining to impeach.
But no, we cannot treat justices like federal employees in other branches of government without violating the judicial independence of the Supreme Court.
Once the legislative and executive branches are allowed to punish a justice the justices become beholden to the other branches, which is exactly what is not supposed to happen in our system of government.
It's funny that you would call for the abolition of the Senate since that is the chamber not subject to gerrymandering.
But no, our democracy is not dysfunctional. Our population is dysfunctional. Throughout the country we have serious disagreements in the population. The representative Congress is just representing the people and showing the very real disagreements that the people have.
Congress is working perfectly, in a way, really representing that people have very strong and honest disagreements.
It would be a malfunction if given the disagreements in the population somehow Congress was all in the same side. In that case it would not be representing the people.
@volkris
These are two different philosophies. Idealism and pragmatism, or if you will neo-Platonism and Positivism. They are largely incompatible. Personally, I am a pragmatist. I judge institutions and policies from their consequences, not the ideals that inspired them. Citizens United, for example, was motivated with an idealistic notion of free speech. In practice, it legalized bribery. Not trying to convince anyone, simply explaining my perspective. Changing humans is very, very hard.
I think you are looking too deeply into this because the major role of representatives is to represent, regardless of whether their constituents are floating toward one philosophy or another, OR whether the representative job itself is a good idea or a bad idea, given whatever philosophical basis.
These functionaries seem to be doing their job, and it's a separate question weather that's a job that they should be doing.
@volkris
I disagree. I am simply not ignoring the fact that our democracy is dysfunctional. If we had a parliamentary democracy, with one person, one vote, I would agree that this is what a majority of voters want. But gerrymandering and the structure of the Senate assure minority rule by the #gop. Late Rep. Dingell was right in calling for the abolition of the Senate. Our system is showing its age, and the loss of #scotus credibility is a symptom. We don't have to agree, but this is my view.