this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
443 points (99.1% liked)

News

23649 readers
2369 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The United States Supreme Court revealed what some justices touted as a landmark new ethics code last year.

But critics noted that the scandal-plagued institution’s new rules lacked any enforcement mechanisms, making them essentially a 14-page long list of suggestions.

A new leak of secret discussions from behind the bench, published in The New York Times Tuesday, reveals which justices fought to keep the code of conduct toothless.

The Times reported that the court’s nine justices started passing ultra-confidential memos, kept in paper envelopes and off email servers, back and forth at the end of last summer.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 266 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito

As expected.

[–] [email protected] 111 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Somehow Kavanaugh not being on that list is surprising to me.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

And what's the deal with Barrett? I do not get that lady.

[–] [email protected] 121 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I get the sense that she is less "corrupt" and more "complete and total adherence to strict laws, mostly biblical laws."

[–] [email protected] 70 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah, people can be entirely earnest and sincere and still be awful people. A terrible person doesn't have to be based in a self-serving/opportunistic mindset. They can just have backwards beliefs that result in destructive ideas and actions even while being technically principled and upstanding in terms of the ethics of their role and the law.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The way I explained it as a science major who went to undergrad at a very conservative Christian college is "If you start from a flawed premise, you can use valid logic to get to very flawed conclusions without making any mistakes."

Religious conservatives are starting from a flawed premise (edit: that premise being the existence of a just, omnipotent, omniscient deity) and either imposing biblical law or libertarianism is the logical outcome of that flawed premise.

As an aside, this is my biggest problem with religion in general. I'm all for "live and let live," but the logical outcome of believing that your sect has a monopoly on capital-T "Truth" is to spread that "truth" to others by any means necessary for their own good. Most religions, especially Abrahamic monotheism, do not logically allow for pluralism, and the paradox of tolerance means that if we tolerate intolerant religion, eventually that religion will control everything.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They also are welcome to whatever beliefs they have.

The flaw is ignoring the separation of church and state, the lack of an official religion, the intentional non-religious start of the founders, the judicial history of protection of beliefs

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Yes, they are entitled to and have a right to any beliefs they want. However, my whole point is that "Separation of church and state" and the lack of an official state religion are antithetical to fundamentalist Christianity, or any Christianity on some level. Christians believe that "the laws of God" supersede the "laws of man," so they won't let a pesky little thing like the Constitution get between them and legislating their beliefs.

And their right, if you start from the assumption that Christianity is true. Why wouldn't you want to spread the word of God and minimize sin? After all, that's what they are called to do in the New Testament! Why wouldn't they protect others from themselves by outlawing everything with which their religion disagrees?

To me, that is one of the central problems with tolerating discussion of Christianity and Christian values in a political space (or any religion that claims to have a monopoly on objective truth)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Lawful Evil vs Neutral Evil vs Chaotic Evil

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Lawful Evil that THINKS they are Lawful Good

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

For the most part I'd say so. Then there's the portion that fall into "extreme malicious compliance"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

For "extreme malicious compliance," I'd say there's also Lawful Chaotic: following the letter of the law to cause chaos.

Which implies the existence of Chaotic Lawful: upholding the spirit of the law with little to no regard for the letter of the law.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, fucked up though it might be, I think that within the moral framework she's chosen to operate in she's "doing the right thing". That framework is monstrous and should be disqualifying for a position on the judiciary. But I think she’s got no moral qualms and would treat the morality that most of us have with a mixture of confusion and hostility.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 weeks ago

She is "Lawful Evil"...

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago

Maybe Kavanaugh is just bright enough to realize that ethics rules won't mean shit with his favorite fascist coming into power.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

He hasn't been there long enough to start exploiting the loopholes.