Iohannes99

joined 1 year ago
 

Although I agree with this bill, the NYT calling it "strict new ethics rules" is a bit much. Reading the requirements in the bill itself, it struck me as legislating that SCOTUS justices do the bare ethical minimum required of most every other judge - in other words, it's the type of bill that shows up when an organization demonstrates that it is incapable of self-policing.

What's shocking is 100% opposition by Republicans to a bill requiring a Justice to recuse if a close family member receives a large gift from a litigant - literally, that's in the bill.

How is this controversial? Senator Graham says why - requiring the court to act ethically will "destroy" the court. He's saying, we don't care if justices are ethical so long as they're partisan.

Congress needs to step up here.

[–] Iohannes99@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By background, no. Current lawyer, Classics major.

But... I am presently defending a Bittorrent copyright infringement case and negotiated a software license agreement a few weeks ago.

[–] Iohannes99@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I mean, the original Latin version is basically the same as the English translation. And Jerome lived in Jerusalem among native Hebrew speakers when doing his translation in around 400 CE. So, I don't get the comments that it's edited for political purposes. If there's a mistranslation, it goes back to the beginning and has held steady for 1600 years.

Also, not to lose sight of practicalities, if a billion Christians have relied on the "wrong" version over the last 1600 years, doesn't that make the "wrong" version orthodox? The "right" translation at this point is heretical.

[–] Iohannes99@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Don't see how this does not get "major questioned" out of existence too.