Necessary but not sufficient

IIRC federal judges at all levels below the USSC have codes of ethics. And they understand the optics of taking gifts from the rich & well-connected.

 

CU isn’t about doing something. It’s about stopping people from doing shit. How are you going to stop people from donating shit tons of money if there is no law against it and no court would order it or allow prosecution for someone doing it.

 

Pass the Donald Is Cancelled (DIC[k]) Act where any public building that was altered in any way, including naming or renovations, are required to be reversed and returned to their original state.

 

Yes, that's correct, but it was not applied/enforced for the Supremes.

On a related note, all people in congress, the executive and the high courts needs to be banned from trading. They should be required to put all their investments in blind trusts and banned from acquiring properties and stakes while in office.

 

And then when SCOTUS members have not been serving in good behavior we can come up with some process where the house indicts the scotus member, they are tried in the senate, and if convicted they are removed from the bench.

 

I disagree, the impeachment tresshold sucks. It should be easier and swifter, like a panel of circuit judges, or a senate committee.

 

The problem is that it doesn’t matter if you agree.the problem is people here come up with “solutions” like this that would require a constitutional amendment to implement….a threshold that is way way way higher than impeachment.

 

I thought the discussion was about how to remake the system.

If we start under the assumption that we're going to need 2/3 of the states to agree on anything, we're basically screwed up for the foreseeable future. Anyhow, putting some conduct rules on lawmakers and judiciary is not something that needs to reach constitunional amendment levels of approval, or if it does, the whole thread is pointless and we should just go to the doom thread.

 

I’ll state again….SCOTUS can be reformed (read expanded) through legislation when Dems hold the house, the senate, and the presidency. The filibuster can be removed unilaterally by the Dem senate. It is the ONLY realistic path forward. I act like a dick on this topic because this is a group of informed posters who still haven’t accepted that anything but demanding our candidates support expansion of SCOTUS means they’re not interested in anything more than performative measures they know will be rejected by SCOTUS.

SCOTUS expansion is a PREREQUISITE to anything else….and frankly…it’s the only thing that matters.

 

I like the idea of having to recertify all laws after 50 years or so, including each article of the constitution and amendments.

 

Jefferson's letter to Madison on this topic
...

Every constitution then, & every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, & not of right. It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only.​

.....................

I found absolutely fascinating about this letter that it was damnably hard to find a good excerpt. The reasoning is elaborate and deliberate and gives no fvcks about ctrl-c/v. It's worth a read, if nothing else as an example of how people (er. elite White planter-philosopher-kings) formerly went through the process of laying out ideas and coming to a conclusion.

He takes some time to figure out what a "generation" looks like, and how one generation can/can't encumber the next with debt, and from this extrapolates what's reasonable from a foundational governmental point of view.

 

I read this in college too. Too bad Jefferson wasn’t that involved in the Constitutional Conventioon. However, I think 19years is too few years. We need stability.

And of course, you don’t have to wait 50years to make changes. You just MUST address it by then, or the law becomes a norm rather than a right, and loses its legal preeminence. We could have long dealt with the 2nd Amendment issues before the nut jobs were able to wrestle it in their favor.

 

This is an interesting idea to nullify Citizen’s United.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/08/07/transparent-election-initiative/
Basically, states can regulate and license corporations any way they want, so they can simply nullify and they relicense all corporations contingent on not allowing them to spend money in politics.

This is being led by former Montana legislators.

 

I read this a while ago and only had a few minutes to read that article again…but I think this doesn’t matter as the Montana law does not allow corporations chartered in other states to do anything in Montana that corporations chartered in Montana cannot do.

so you don’t even need Delaware.

You need actual market/gdp states like California and NY to pass this law. At that point corporations have to choose to give up a huge percentage of their market or comply

at least that’s the theory. And I don’t think this scotus would be as concerned with upending 200 plus years of corporate law precedent as they seem to think they would

 

Your last sentence is the game.

 

Yep…and honestly I didn’t bother posting it here when I came across it because to say it’s a stretch that this would survive a challenge to this scotus is an understatement..and that might be an understatement of the word understatement

 

States already regulate spending in elections and gift giving to legislators etc. Is that unconstitutional?

I almost laughed out loud this morning when I read that Trump was saying the federal government can't regulate greenhouse gasses, because that means California gets to write the rules. Half of federal regulation is written as an attempt to preempt states from doing more.

 

I hope Scalia is warming up a new circle of Hell for these six.

 

It's George Mason.

 

She’s not wrong:

“Democrats should propose amendments to the SAVE act that require the government to furnish free IDs to all eligible voters before requiring them, automatically register all people to vote, expand mail-in voting, and create a national voting holiday. Then watch republicans block them.”

https://bsky.app/profile/muellershewrote.com/post/3mewozj4b5s2y

I’d only add that they would also need to stay on message and be loud as hell about it.

 

Shhhh the new plan of Hakim Jeffries is “defiant silence”!!!!