Imagine how ethically and intellectually bankrupt you have to be to note that publicizing something you do undermines public trust in your office, then conclude not that you're wrong to do it, but that other people are wrong to publicize it.
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
171 points (98.9% liked)
News
23664 readers
3923 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
Yeah, telling your superior to obey obvious ethical standards undermines their authority.
How dare he expect the highest court in the country abide by the same standards as the rest of the judiciary; doesn't he know who they are??
"The fact that I did not have any particular case in mind when I drafted the piece does not reduce the gravity of my lapse," he said.
Ponsor, who has authored several mystery novels, said that going forward, he would seek advice from a judicial panel before contemplating any public, nonjudicial writing.
No. Double down. Say, "The Supreme Court doesn't need my help to have its integrity undermound. I meant what I said, and if you'd like to have the American judiciary further undermine itself by removing judges for telling the truth, I'd consider it a great honor and privilege if you would start with me. If not, then take your requests for authoritarian fiction back home, and stop making stupid requests. For the time being, this is America, where we can say what we want to say."
Pointing out a lack of ethics is unethical.
This ruling alone does more to diminish the integrity of the justice system than any 1000 judges criticizing a SC justice's lack of ethics. It is ethical to criticize a lack of ethics.
This is not a good sign of things to come
We've had a bunch of not good signs lately
Need to publish using a pseudonym, like they did in the 1770s.
A modest proposal, let's eat judges ...
I wouldn't call that very modest, but I'm happy to give it a try!
They might be a little old, but we could still use them to feed the poor.
I don't know, they're kind of old. They might be tough and stringy. I guess if we stew them long enough....
Instant pot for faster results
Highest court in the land, and the best they can muster is a "No, U"
The "rubber and glue" defense is tried and true with American conservatives