Would you support a 50 dollar gift limit for the Supreme Court?

[fantome profane]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4717214-ocasio-cortez-raskin-to-introduce-legislation-to-rein-in-a-fundamentally-unaccountable-and-rogue-supreme-court/#:~:text=Ocasio%2DCortez%20said%20Tuesday%20night,Congress%2C%E2%80%9D%20she%20added%20later.

“Congressman Raskin and myself will be introducing forthcoming legislation to even have the Supreme Court be subject to the same $50 gift rule that he and I are subject to, as everyone else who are members of Congress,” she added later.


Do you support this? Or are you happy with Supreme Court Justices receiving million of dollars in gifts?

‘Generational scandal’: Justice Thomas raked in $4M in gifts, report reveals

New data released by a Supreme Court watchdog reveals Justice Clarence Thomas has collected more than $4 million worth of gifts throughout his career. NYU professor Melissa Murray joins to discuss.

www.msnbc.com

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I voted "Yes."

 

[Pogo]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4717214-ocasio-cortez-raskin-to-introduce-legislation-to-rein-in-a-fundamentally-unaccountable-and-rogue-supreme-court/#:~:text=Ocasio%2DCortez%20said%20Tuesday%20night,Congress%2C%E2%80%9D%20she%20added%20later.

“Congressman Raskin and myself will be introducing forthcoming legislation to even have the Supreme Court be subject to the same $50 gift rule that he and I are subject to, as everyone else who are members of Congress,” she added later.


Do you support this? Or are you happy with Supreme Court Justices receiving million of dollars in gifts?

‘Generational scandal’: Justice Thomas raked in $4M in gifts, report reveals

New data released by a Supreme Court watchdog reveals Justice Clarence Thomas has collected more than $4 million worth of gifts throughout his career. NYU professor Melissa Murray joins to discuss.

www.msnbc.com

But the GOP has already said they don't want ethics rules and this limit sounds like an ethical rule to me.

Republicans block bill requiring Supreme Court to adopt enforceable ethics code​

Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and other Republican senators on Wednesday blocked a bill requiring the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct and create a mechanism to enforce it in the wake of several high-profile controversies.

The legislation, the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, would require Supreme Court justices to adopt a code of conduct, create a mechanism to investigate alleged violations of the code and other laws and improve the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sure. Don't see why one branch should be allowed to do so much better than any other branch. They're all supposed to be "co-equal" in powers aren't they? So if that's the case, why not "co-equal" in gift elegibility?

 

[Pogo]

Sure. Don't see why one branch should be allowed to do so much better than any other branch. They're all supposed to be "co-equal" in powers aren't they? So if that's the case, why not "co-equal" in gift elegibility?

As old Orwell said in that book so many conservatives want to ban.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others​

 

[Shaul]

More political hey and grandstanding. The Supreme Court already follows the rules outlined in the Ethics in Government Act. Nobody was clamoring that there was a "problem" until it became politically expedient for Democrats to gin one up in the election cycle.

 

[fantome profane]

More political hey and grandstanding. The Supreme Court already follows the rules outlined in the Ethics in Government Act.

That is hilarious.

 

[tytlyf]

I voted No.
The gift limit should be zero "0"

 

[Pogo]

More political hey and grandstanding. The Supreme Court already follows the rules outlined in the Ethics in Government Act. Nobody was clamoring that there was a "problem" until it became politically expedient for Democrats to gin one up in the election cycle.

Well, part of the problem is that Thomas did not follow the reporting rules for multiple years.

 

[We Never Know]

I voted No.
The gift limit should be zero "0"

Yeah that's what I'm thinking.
They get gifted to be bought/influenced.

 

[McBell]

Well, part of the problem is that Thomas did not follow the reporting rules for multiple years.

I honestly do not see this law stopping, or even slowing, it.
If there are not any really severe penalties, it is pretty much worthless.

 

[Heyo]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4717214-ocasio-cortez-raskin-to-introduce-legislation-to-rein-in-a-fundamentally-unaccountable-and-rogue-supreme-court/#:~:text=Ocasio%2DCortez%20said%20Tuesday%20night,Congress%2C%E2%80%9D%20she%20added%20later.

“Congressman Raskin and myself will be introducing forthcoming legislation to even have the Supreme Court be subject to the same $50 gift rule that he and I are subject to, as everyone else who are members of Congress,” she added later.


Do you support this? Or are you happy with Supreme Court Justices receiving million of dollars in gifts?

‘Generational scandal’: Justice Thomas raked in $4M in gifts, report reveals

New data released by a Supreme Court watchdog reveals Justice Clarence Thomas has collected more than $4 million worth of gifts throughout his career. NYU professor Melissa Murray joins to discuss.

www.msnbc.com

I support it in principle, but don't think it should be pinned at $50, and it shouldn't be restricted to gifts but also include "earnings".

When a company hires a full-time worker, they like that worker to work for them full-time. I like my representatives to work for me full-time. When s/he makes more money from side hustles, s/he isn't working for me. When s/he gets more money in gifts than from her/his salary, s/he isn't working for me.
Gifts and side projects should be restricted to, say, 10% of the regular salary. Also, representatives and judges salary should be much higher, so their loyalty should be with the people who pay them.
There would also have to be some fine print in the law regarding family members and representatives who own a business. Bribers would get creative otherwise.

 

[Valjean]

Sounds good in principle, though "gifts" and "value' can be pretty ambiguous.

What I'd like to see is publicly funded elections, with no donations -- private, corporate or PAC.

 

[Heyo]

Sounds good in principle, though "gifts" and "value' can be pretty ambiguous.

What I'd like to see is publicly funded elections, with no donations -- private, corporate or PAC.

Wouldn't help with Extreme Court Justices though, as they aren't elected.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I support a $0 gift limit for the supreme court.

If anyone hands them a stick of gum, I want their homes raided by armed police.

 

[danieldemol]

I support it in principle, but don't think it should be pinned at $50, and it shouldn't be restricted to gifts but also include "earnings".

When a company hires a full-time worker, they like that worker to work for them full-time. I like my representatives to work for me full-time. When s/he makes more money from side hustles, s/he isn't working for me. When s/he gets more money in gifts than from her/his salary, s/he isn't working for me.
Gifts and side projects should be restricted to, say, 10% of the regular salary. Also, representatives and judges salary should be much higher, so their loyalty should be with the people who pay them.
There would also have to be some fine print in the law regarding family members and representatives who own a business. Bribers would get creative otherwise.

^This, otherwise if a $50 limit is approved people may just send their million dollar checks subdivided into $50 allotments in my view

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sure. Don't see why one branch should be allowed to do so much better than any other branch. They're all supposed to be "co-equal" in powers aren't they? So if that's the case, why not "co-equal" in gift elegibility?

Holy cow!

I agree with you!

 

[PureX]

Why should anyone be giving the SC any gifts?

 

[Pogo]

Why should anyone be giving the SC any gifts?

In the grand tradition of expecting a gift in return.