>>25952 Yup. Got Notes before you go?
>>25954 Sparkly Thang. (Good Morning!)
Handoff Confirmed?
Hear ya. Still catching up but no worries.
>>25944 Paraphrasing from the vid: when Roberts was was confronted about the SC having taken up Bush v. Gore, Roberts allegedly yelled "I don't give a bleep about that case. Back then we didn't have riots."
Moral Cowardice
>>25944, >>25951 Huh. Apparently there is no Inspector General for the Supreme Court. From Ballotpedia:
The Inspector General of the Federal Courts is a position proposed in both houses of the United States Congress. An Inspector General would conduct investigations of alleged misconduct of federal judges, act to prevent fraud and waste, and recommend changes to the judicial branch. Differences exist between the Senate and House versions of the bill, such as whether the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States would be subject to the authority of this position. This position has been proposed several times, at least in 2009, 2011 and 2013.[1][2][3]
This bill was reintroduced by Senator Grassley in the Senate 113th Congress on March 14, 2013, and was renamed Senate Bill 575: Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2013. The bill was also reintroduced by Representative Sensenbrenner in the House on the same day, named H.R. 1203: Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2013.[4][5]
and:
As listed in The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2009, the proposed office of Inspector General shall be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for a specific term of four years. Also, the legislation gives the Chief Justice express authority to remove the Inspector General from office at anytime for reasons of misconduct or not carrying out their prescribed duties.
Grassley has been all over this for years and apparently re-introduced the bill again in 2017. History of the bill from GovTrack website (cap related): https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s575
Given that Roberts is the Chief Justice and might be the one who needs to be investigated, it surely does not seem prudent that the Chief Justice would appoint the IG. j/s
https://ballotpedia.org/Inspector_General_of_the_Federal_Courts
Gotta love it. Administrative Oversight and Accountability for the courts. Direct copy/pasta, first line:
"Accountability is a core value of the federal udiciary, as stated in the Strategic Plan for the Federal Judiciary, encompassing:"
Grammar kitty will not be amused.
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration/administrative-oversight-and-accountability
Updated in 2020 - Strategic Plan for the Federal Judiciary
…Identified in this plan are seven fundamental issues that the judiciary must now address, and a set of responses for each issue. The scope of these issues includes the fair and impartial delivery of justice; the public’s trust and confidence in, and understanding of, the federal courts; the effective and efficient management of resources; a diverse workforce and an exemplary workplace; technology’s potential; access to justice and the judicial process; and relations with the other branches of government.
Strategic Issues for the Federal Judiciary
The strategies and goals in this plan are organized around seven issues — fundamental policy questions or challenges that are based on an assessment of key trends affecting the judiciary’s mission and core values:
Issue 1: Providing Justice
Issue 2: Preserving Public Trust, Confidence, and Understanding
Issue 3: The Effective and Efficient Management of Public Resources
Issue 4: The Judiciary Workforce and Workplace
Issue 5: Harnessing Technology’s Potential
Issue 6: Enhancing Access to Justice and the Judicial Process
Issue 7: The Judiciary’s Relationships with the Other Branches of Government
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/strategic-plan-federal-judiciary
>>25965 No cinnamon short bred. These wurk?
>>25968 Food Porn? In the earlies no less. Well, it's a much moar civilized wakey wakey than yesterday so props for dat.
kek
OK Wakes - you gonna take this bred? Gonna get some pre-G v 0.02 schtuff accomplished.
reposting:
>>25855 (PB)
Why you bugging a baker about bans? Bakers ain't gonna ban you, take up your beef with BO.
BUT SINCE YOU'RE INTERESTED:
Nobody is forced to post on this board.
You are mistaking freedom of speech with freedom of expression.
Also, you are not understanding that each board on 8 has its own standards about what is acceptable and what is not.
Wanna argue for an idea?
Feel free.
Wanna post pron, accusations, demeaning memes, or red text SPAM?
Get lost. You can cry about it all you want, nobody cares.
Sauce:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/freedom-of-expression-is-there-a-difference-between-speech-and-press
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-freedom-of-speech-and-freedom-of-expression
https://www.britannica.com/topic/First-Amendment/Permissible-restrictions-on-expression
>>25977 Just to be clear = this was another anon's post. I just brought it over from Pb.