#Ethic Committee

[andhumanslovedstories]

Looking for a fun activity to do this week? I recommend sitting your loved ones down and having the uncomfortable but necessary discussion where everyone makes sure everyone knows exactly what life extending measures people would and would not want so that so that in the case anyone is in the hospital needing these extreme interventions in order to keep living, you don’t make a hard situation all the more difficult by having to guess what bad option is the one your loved one would want. I also recommend bowling. If you’re brave enough, these two essential activities can and should be combined

[eparchclass]

Asexual / AroAce / Aromantic O5 Council + Ethics Committee logos

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

As of December 2023, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has received 59 allegations that Donald Trump or his committees violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. In 29 of those cases, nonpartisan staff in the FEC’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) recommended the FEC investigate Trump. Yet not once has a Republican FEC commissioner voted to approve any such investigation or enforcement of the law against Trump.

Democratic Vice Chair Ellen Weintraub pointed this out in her December 5, 2023 statement of reasons after the FEC once again failed to garner the votes to enforce the law against Trump after he allegedly violated the law by illegally soliciting or directing money to a pro-Trump super PAC that spent millions on ads opposing Joe Biden in 2020.

Because at least four of the six FEC Commissioners need to approve any FEC investigation, and because only three of those seats can be filled by Democrats, Republicans hold a veto over the agency’s enforcement and have repeatedly used it to shoot down any recommended enforcement of campaign finance law against Trump—and thus successfully shielded him from accountability over and over. Instead of fostering bipartisanship, the split FEC has often become gridlocked and, in cases involving Trump, its ability to pursue action is constrained by the members of one party.

The FEC’s enabling statute, the Federal Election Campaign Act, specifically subjects the Commission’s non-enforcement to review to prevent it from blocking meritorious enforcement. In June 2018, however, two Republican-appointed judges of the D.C. Circuit—including now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh—largely gutted that rule, giving commissioners the authority to block enforcement of the law without judicial review if the commissioners claimed that they did so as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion or under Heckler v. Chaney.

So, in 21 of the 29 cases where the FEC received recommendations to enforce the law against Trump, Republican commissioners justified non-enforcement by invoking prudential or discretionary factors in attempts to circumvent review.

When dismissing the recommendations to investigate Trump—and to kill further inquiries into his actions—the Republican commissioners have at times claimed that the FEC should not take any action because “proceeding further would not be an appropriate use of Commission resources” or that the resources would be “best spent elsewhere.” Trump has even falsely declared that the FEC “dropped” one of its investigations into him “because they found no evidence of problems.” As Commissioner Weintraub wrote in a statement of reasons in November 2023, “the data is clear: At the FEC, Mr. Trump is in a category by himself.”

Unless courts restore their check on partisan vetoes on enforcement, the commissioners will continue to fail to enforce federal campaign finance law against the powerful figures they are trying to protect.

[ask-the-dunmeshi-biologists]

Hi Mr. Chilchuck, I see you're on the ethics committee! What would you say is the weirdest or most "out there" research proposal you've heard in your time there?

Invertebrates are largely unprotected by Animal Welfare laws, which leads to some…interesting proposals.

[Chicken paper]

Our ask is open!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Joan McCarter at Daily Kos:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin is failing at his job of holding the Supreme Court accountable. While he continues issuing stern statements and making floor speeches about Justice Samuel Alito’s recent flag scandals, he isn’t actually doing anything about it. Now other Democrats—like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland—are stepping up to fill the leadership void. Alito already blew off Durbin and Whitehouse’s demands that he recuse himself from insurrection-related cases, despite his display of Stop the Steal flags. Whitehouse followed up with a letter Monday, inquiring about a tax case from which he pressed Alito to recuse himself. 

Before the hearing for that case, Alito was interviewed for The Wall Street Journal by one of the lawyers, David Rivkin Jr. In the article, Alito declared that both he and the Supreme Court are above the law. Whitehouse wrote that it “appears that you offered an improper opinion regarding a question that might come before the Court; did so in the context of a known ongoing legal dispute involving that precise question; did so at the behest of an interviewer who as a lawyer represented a client in that ongoing dispute; and did so to the benefit of his client, your personal friend, and to the benefit of yourself, as a recipient of undisclosed gifts that are the subject of our investigation.” “I note that the Supreme Court is the only place in all of government where issues of this nature have no place or means of investigation or resolution,” he continued. “So far, my questions regarding these events seem to have disappeared into a black hole of indifference.” This letter is likely to fall into the same black hole, but it does help build the case against Alito and the rampant corruption he and fellow Justice Clarence Thomas have brought to the court. 

So disappointed in Sen. Durbin’s inaction on the SCOTUS corruption crisis. #DoBetterDurbin

[pinktinselmonstrosity]

got my dissertation grade back and I PASSED!!!!!

[nukebag]

it fucks me up how they keep 096 in a cell like.. that

9x9 airtight cube no wonder he’s crying at least give him a blanket or something

[witchy-vibes96]

Love me them thick girls🥰😘

[stolenbybirds]

The Ethics Committee wasn't being super ethical rn and made me into a millipede

[blood-orange-juice]

There's a scene in the first season of Babylon Berlin where a characters reads a lecture on psychoanalysis and PTSD (the series are set sometime between the two world wars) and the audience boos him.

"Brain is an organ, not a poetry book," they say.

For me it put into perspective how important was what Freud did. Considering the setting he had to work in, the setting he had to overcome in his own mind first, we really don't value the guy enough.

Not like I didn't *know* it, but it helped immensely to see it in context.

He was the first who said that humans have an inner life that's neither sacred nor purely physical. That it's governed by its own predictable rules and breaks in predictable ways, and that it can be mended through talking. Not being electrocuted or medicated out of the patient.

Just how awesome is that. Just how much inner work that required in his times.

[vinnyberries]

Doing stuff on my phone again

More saturated version cause why not

[eparchclass]

O5 Council Occuden [left] — An occuden flag for those who are a member of the O5 Council

Ethics Committee Occuden [right] — An occuden flag for those who are a member of the Ethics Committee

[essophysics-enjoyer]

quick ethics before bed shes basically the same as her former self

translation notes:

orangish red hair because 8980’s discussion page finally confirmed that i am not the only one who associates the committee with orange (you should read 8980 but HEED THE FUCKING WARNINGS its as harrowing as they say it is)

the glasses look exactly like vanguard’s

eyes are the same shade of grey as the foundation’s

the atrocious tie is the lightbulb joke

white suit because purity and transparency and such

black gloves because the hand on her insignia is black and i needed contrast. also the foundation wears gloves too. and something about her purpose being investigation and bringing shit to light but using methods as cloak and dagger as anyone else in the foundation and her hands are black

the open cuff looks like the greek letter omega because omega-1

shes trying. most of the parts of her really are trying to be a functional conscience but shes still beholden to an upper avatar whose harmful habits shes had to take on to function and scp foundation ethics committee is an oxymoron you cant legislate a humane way to imprison checks notes low risk humanoids. she can only reduce harm

shes probably one of my most normal looking personifs but thats okay shes designed to fly under the radar

[ratasum]

Inquest Ethics Committee Pride Month initiatives over the last several years:

All Inquest facilities will have the red lights replaced with rainbow lights for the duration of Pride month.

Any identified LGBTQIA+ researchers get blasted with confetti on clocking in the very first day of Pride and ONLY that day. No confetti if you come out later in the month.

There are Pride cupcakes on Fridays. We cannot guarantee that everyone will get one with your chosen orientation. Complaints will get you a new cupcake. Poison may or may not be included in said cupcake.

Pride potluck day! Please refrain from bringing meals created from experiments. No drinking unless it is required in that laboratory.

Swag bags with lanyards and ribbons for ID badges, displaying the researcher's pronouns and gender/sexuality per that researcher's preferences. If your gender is changed due to a haywire experiment in the middle of the month they will not be replaced but you will receive a new badge.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Noah Berlatsky at Public Notice:

The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday held a lengthy oversight hearing to badger Attorney General Merrick Garland and push the GOP’s false narrative about President Biden weaponizing the DOJ against Donald Trump. Even though the hearing was conducted in obvious bad faith, it was in some ways successful, at least in the limited sense that Republicans grabbed a lot of headlines and forced Garland to spend a day on the defensive. Virtually every major news outlet it extensive coverage, ranging from the New York Times to MSNBC to Newsmax.

The hearing meant that for at least a day, everyone talked about whether the DOJ is treating Trump unfairly, rather than about, say, whether Trump should step aside from the GOP presidential nomination given his felony convictions, or whether Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito should recuse himself after an insurrectionist flag was flown over his house. Congressional oversight hearings give Congress a chance to focus the national conversation on what members want to talk about. It gives them a chance to pressure executive branch officials to adopt congressional priorities, or to explain and potentially embarrass themselves. In contrast, Democrats in the Senate have been bizarrely reluctant to use hearings to advance their agenda. Dick Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has refused to hold hearings to investigate egregious evidence of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas receiving gifts from far right billionaires, or to demand answers from Alito about his apparent embrace of the insurrection. Instead, he’s posting weak statements on social media meekly calling for right-wing members of the Court to do a better job policing themselves. [...]

Senate Democrats need to get a clue

Democrats have of course decried the House hearings on Garland as nakedly partisan nonsense. Garland himself pushed back forcefully against (baseless) Republican claims that the Justice Department had somehow been behind the successful New York state prosecution of Trump on charges of falsifying business records related to hush money payments. Garland described the claim the Justice Department was involved as a “conspiracy theory” and an “attack on the judicial process itself.”  Forceful rejection of Republican lies is a good thing. But there are limits to playing defense. And Democrats have good reason to launch their own judicial investigations not of the Biden Justice Department, but of the Supreme Court. This year, after an extensive investigation, ProPublica determined that Clarence Thomas has for 20 years received lavish gifts, including vacations and loans, from billionaire Republican donors like Harlan Crow. More recently, the New York Times reported that in the days after the January 6 insurrection, an upside-down flag — a symbol of support for Trump’s coup attempt — was raised over the home of Justice Samuel Alito.

Thomas and Alito have shown clear evidence of corruption and/or bias. The Senate Judiciary Committee is supposed to provide oversight for the judiciary and monitor ethical standards and practices. This seems like a great opportunity to hold hearings on the far right Court and demand accountability. Or so you’d think. Durbin has been weirdly but consistently timid. He has not called Thomas to appear before the Judiciary Committee, claiming that Thomas would just refuse to show up. In the case of Alito, Durbin has called on him to recuse himself from cases involving Trump and the 2020 election — including the Court’s current case on whether Trump has immunity from prosecution from his role in January 6. But Alito has refused to recuse, and Chief Justice John Roberts refuses to meet with Durbin and his committee to discuss the matter. The Court has also failed to adopt even the minimal toothless, unenforceable ethics standards that Durbin has been haplessly pushing for years. So, if Alito and Roberts say they won’t cooperate, is that that?

Of course not. Congress has a lot of power. Durbin could subpoena Alito and Thomas and threaten to hold them in contempt if they don’t appear at hearings, just as the House has threatened to hold Garland in contempt. The spectacle of Supreme Court justices lawlessly rejecting subpoenas to even talk to Congress would in itself be a huge story. It would generate media headlines and bringing pressure to bear on Thomas and Alito to recuse themselves from cases involving Trump. The Senate Judiciary Committee could also subpoena others involved in undermining the integrity of the court. The committee has actually approved subpoenas for Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo, key figures in the Thomas bribery scandal. But Durbin has refused to issue those subpoenas, for unclear reasons. Similarly, the Senate Judiciary Committee could hold hearings on the insurrectionist flags flying outside Alito’s home (yes, there was more than one). Alito claims his wife was responsible for the flags, and he himself had nothing to do with them. The committee could call Alito’s wife, Martha Ann, and ask her to explain why she flew the flag and explain the justice’s involvement. [...]

Why won’t Durbin act?

The advantages of using the power of the Senate, including hearings and subpoenas, is pretty clear. Alito and Thomas have shown themselves to be corrupt, biased, and arrogant. Despite massive conflicts of interest, they refuse to recuse themselves, much less resign. That undermines the integrity of the Court, undermines the rule of law, and threatens the Constitution and democracy itself. If there was ever a case for oversight, this is it. And oversight can be effective. Focusing the media on a huge scandal can lead to more reporting, more revelations, more public pressure, and political gain. The threat of subpoenas, and the exposure of hearings, can force justices to look for ways to defuse criticism — and recusing from cases where they are compromised is a pretty obvious step. Durbin’s sad tactic of just begging the justices to do better has not worked. Why won’t he use the tools he has? It’s unclear; his explanations (like arguing Thomas wouldn’t show up anyway) don’t make a lot of sense. Maybe he’s conflict averse. Maybe he’s leery of undermining the legitimacy of the court. Maybe he’s afraid of GOP backlash.

This Noah Berlatsky column in Public Notice is 100% spot-on: Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin needs to stop acting like a potted plant and start conducting hearings into SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito’s compromised ethics. It is time for the Democrats to play on offense instead of being perpetually on defense.