20 Comments
User's avatar
Christine Manns's avatar

Thank you!! I agree whole heartedly.

Expand full comment
Fernanda Lugo's avatar

It'd be cool if you endorsed the statement open letter to the federal reserve to support us for #maydayformoney monetaryalliance.org/mayday

Expand full comment
Erika Morgan's avatar

What is proposed is all well and good however I will suggest that since the Supreme Court is a last arbitrator for our justice system:

since we have a justice system that is at least not peopled by officers who have lost their way and don't see or understand their own personal corruption.

since they seem unable to offer any self policing or control strategy.

since the arbitrary nature of who can sit on a jury, while not perfect at least is not systemically imperfect.

I suggest we create a "jury" type Supreme Court where the candidates are pulled case by case from the Federal Court Judges as the jury pool. These prospective jury persons would then be vetted through a process like any jury, and become selected if they were acceptable to both sides for just this case, just like in any court case after due process to select a jury. I feel that as our civil lives become more complex due to conflicting ideas it is unreasonable to expect one jurist to be truly impartial in every conceivable case that rises up to needing a supreme court decision. In this scenario if a banking question were to come before the court a jurist who had personal friends who were bankers would likely not become a jury member for that case, but he might be acceptable if say the question was "is there any Presidential immunity for acts committed while in office".

And on the immunity question we must stop the clock for those possible crimes and restart the clock at the moment the past president is replaced, so that President's energy can be expended on the Governmental job and not some personal distraction. Additionally we need a requirement about transgressions of the law, bankruptcies, and especially criminal records be disqualification for any representational office in the land President down to dog catcher. The reason for the powers of "pardon by the executives" in our country, are for the purpose of pardoning certain individuals who deserve the pardon so they can serve their community because of their rehabilitation.

Expand full comment
ALLAN M TUCKER's avatar

Loose cannons should not be allowed to make decisions fot other people.

Expand full comment
Bob Peacock's avatar

This is long overdue. The right wing justices want to take power with the rest of the GOP and land the Country in chaos and an old west theology.

Expand full comment
User was indefinitely suspended for this comment. Show
Expand full comment
People Power United's avatar

Not a sham. It would be under the justice department like the other AG's. Yes I believe they would require congressional approval. Term determined by justice department. No they can not punish, only share information with congress whose job is to hold SCOTUS accountable. This is most certainly not political. This position is collecting information, investigating, and reporting to Congress who should create laws to prevent corruption at SCOTUS.

Expand full comment
James Apone's avatar

Be A Proud Profound Progressive

Expand full comment
Theresa LaFavor's avatar

YES!!!!!!!! We need this today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Expand full comment
DeeDee Reinert's avatar

I sure did!

Expand full comment
Mary Elizabeth Jackson's avatar

I agree; "a well informed citizenry is [indeed] the best defense against tyranny."

Expand full comment
Anita Dinsmore's avatar

Overdue but very appropriate given the situation with Justices Thomas and Alito. CJ Robert’s sadly is very ineffective in his role as Chief Justice.

Expand full comment
Sara Siegler's avatar

I think there’s a missing piece in your proposed bill: money for enforcement. Many great laws have no ability to chew, though they may have teeth. Just an idea.

Expand full comment
People Power United's avatar

Great catch! That is how most bills start off. Once passed they have to submit in appropriations for the budget.

Expand full comment
Patricia Davis's avatar

I’ll sign, support, post the bill for endorsement, contact my congress people to vote for.

Expand full comment
Joan Powell's avatar

Article by The WP: “Supreme Court divided over key charge against Jan 6 rioters and Trump”

USA Today “Supreme Court snubs Republicans who dodged metal detectors in Congress after Jan 6th”

NBC News “Justice Clarence Thomas misses Supreme Court arguments”

Where was he?

I read SCOTUS has hidden dockets hmm

Politico “How Donald Trump gets Special treatment in the legal system “

Expand full comment
Denise's avatar

Great Idea! It is time to do this!

Expand full comment
Joan Powell's avatar

Thank you, we need this and in all due respect of what’s happening the DOJ should hire a temporary Inspector General until it passes Congress.

Expand full comment
Aria White's avatar

Excellent news and I hope to be able to tune in to the Thursday meeting with representative Stansbury, et all.

Expand full comment