The “rules” are in place, they’d simply be exercising existing structure.
You should listen to the podcast More Perfect if you want to learn more about the court.
When you’ve convinced an entire political party that any changes in anything ever is always bad… it’s kinda difficult to please those people.
Like, opposing ethics reform? So if a judge gets bribed… you want them to be able to say,“Nah nah can’t get me, I’m friends with a billionaire!”
Or, to ask in a different way,do you think that it was the intention of the founders that the highest judges in our form or government make their rulings based on who gives them the most money?
Every time they don’t vote the way the dems want them to they want to change the rules. It always comes back to bite them later though
How is implementing ethics rules and enforcement bad? How can it come back to “bite” them?
Because those that will actually enforce it will turn the other way until “the other guys” get caught.
That’s not a problem with having ethics rules though. That’s a problem with enforcement
Change the rules? No.
The “rules” are in place, they’d simply be exercising existing structure.
You should listen to the podcast More Perfect if you want to learn more about the court.
When you’ve convinced an entire political party that any changes in anything ever is always bad… it’s kinda difficult to please those people.
Like, opposing ethics reform? So if a judge gets bribed… you want them to be able to say, “Nah nah can’t get me, I’m friends with a billionaire!”
Or, to ask in a different way, do you think that it was the intention of the founders that the highest judges in our form or government make their rulings based on who gives them the most money?
because ^that is our current system