I would say this code of ethics is better than nothing, but as the article states, these are reiterations of the code Justices have voluntarily held themselves to while behaving in the way that...
I would say this code of ethics is better than nothing, but as the article states, these are reiterations of the code Justices have voluntarily held themselves to while behaving in the way that has drawn scrutiny and criticism. So, in my opinion, without any mechanism to apply this code of ethics, similar to their state and federal cohort, it is toothless and without effect with the exception of it's optics.
Exactly, this is another case of Congress' dereliction of duty and the media's constitutional illiteracy. Clarence Thomas should have been impeached and the Senate should have decided his fate but...
The Supreme Court's enforcement, for better or worse, is the Legislative branch and impeachment
Exactly, this is another case of Congress' dereliction of duty and the media's constitutional illiteracy. Clarence Thomas should have been impeached and the Senate should have decided his fate but partisan politics won't allow that to happen
I made no comment whatsoever on the ethics rules, if asked I would have said that I unequivocally support them and actually wish they were more strongly worded. The conversation being had in this...
I made no comment whatsoever on the ethics rules, if asked I would have said that I unequivocally support them and actually wish they were more strongly worded. The conversation being had in this thread is that there is an apparent lack of enforceability when in fact enforcement does lay, and always has laid, with the US Congress
I agree, but (and I am not saying this as anything close to a legal expert) I wonder if and how something could be scaffolded into our government without Constitutional change (which we all know...
I agree, but (and I am not saying this as anything close to a legal expert) I wonder if and how something could be scaffolded into our government without Constitutional change (which we all know wouldn't ever happen).
I'm just so frustrated by how it's clear SCOTUS Judges are enriching themselves unethically. I've seen scathing examples of how Conservative judges have done so and shockingly I'm really not cool with how Liberal judges have either, albeit I don't see them as remotely the same in infraction.
I wish that the people who have the power to fix the ways our Constitution is Outmoded didn't also benefit the most from it. The idea that we don't need to keep altering it is staggering, considering how many amendments we have passed. There is that part of me that sees our highest court gets to decide their own ethical guidelines and, oh by the way, they don't have to abide by them if they don't really want to and I wish we were the type of country that could grow in the ways we need to.
I'm reading through Caste by Isabel Wilkerson and it is the most cohesive argument I've ever read that the US has never been a moral state and it's only the population that has, reluctantly at many times, changed it for the positive. I had already begun shedding all the propaganda I had believed about our country since Obama's presidency. But Ms Wilkerson's book is surgically extensive with it's receipts and it ties so much together in a convincing and heartbreaking way.
I can’t help but think that if they had included some kind of enforcement mechanism, the discussion would be some variation of “we investigated ourselves and determined we did nothing wrong”. The...
I can’t help but think that if they had included some kind of enforcement mechanism, the discussion would be some variation of “we investigated ourselves and determined we did nothing wrong”. The US government is an adversarial system: the code of ethics is the rope that congress should use for hanging.
We don’t necessarily need to get into the constitutional weeds of impeachment. At minimum, we could require that they simply return any improper gifts and pay back any improperly paid expenses.
We don’t necessarily need to get into the constitutional weeds of impeachment. At minimum, we could require that they simply return any improper gifts and pay back any improperly paid expenses.
But there ends up being a political element to this. These sorts of cases would likely be perceived as partisan (whether or not it actually is). Murder or assault is relatively clear cut,...
But there ends up being a political element to this. These sorts of cases would likely be perceived as partisan (whether or not it actually is). Murder or assault is relatively clear cut, corruption isn’t, and many authoritarian regimes use “corruption” as a vaguely defined charge to detain political rivals. Many democracies put the focus on impeachment first, because it helps minimize concerns over partisan abuse.
I think we have largely seen that impeachment is seen as a partisan exercise over the past few years. I’m not talking about removing them as a judge — I’m just suggesting that, as a bare minimum,...
I think we have largely seen that impeachment is seen as a partisan exercise over the past few years. I’m not talking about removing them as a judge — I’m just suggesting that, as a bare minimum, judges shouldn’t be allowed to keep their bribes and other ill-gotten gains.
What’s the issue here? I’m not seeing it. They can surrender their bribes or go to jail. They can still be a judge in jail, so there’s no constitutional issue.
What’s the issue here? I’m not seeing it. They can surrender their bribes or go to jail. They can still be a judge in jail, so there’s no constitutional issue.
What I want from the court is ethics and accountability. I don't see this as moving the needle for either. This is an unenforceable document full of "shoulds" instead of "shalls" and leaves...
What I want from the court is ethics and accountability. I don't see this as moving the needle for either. This is an unenforceable document full of "shoulds" instead of "shalls" and leaves everything ultimately still up to the individual justice. If this document isn't about making an enforceable code of ethics, then it's just an attempt to placate the public without actually making any change.
The commentary around recusals is also a ton of fun. It goes a long way to try and show the evils of recusal without discussing the downsides of bias or compromise. The argument that recusals bias the court against the petitioner ignores that their bias could be against the petitioner. It also argues that having a clear 5-4 decision, even with a biased judge being the tiebreaker, is better than a split decision. It's clear that having 9 justices on all cases is the most important thing, and none of these ethical suggestions should get in the way of that.
If it's absolutely vital to have 9 justices per case, perhaps the court could do with having 13 justices so that they could have the full 9 even with recusals and other issues that might draw a...
If it's absolutely vital to have 9 justices per case, perhaps the court could do with having 13 justices so that they could have the full 9 even with recusals and other issues that might draw a justice away for 38 vacations over the course of a year.
That's been proposed a couple of times recently - currently, as the Judiciary Act of 2023. Of course, the prospects for passage are non-existent with a Republican House majority. It shouldn't even...
That's been proposed a couple of times recently - currently, as the Judiciary Act of 2023. Of course, the prospects for passage are non-existent with a Republican House majority. It shouldn't even be political. The growth of the docket alone would justify a larger Court - it's been 9 justices since 1869.
Yes, it feels like painstaking intention was put into making it clear that should someone break the rules, it's actually much more important that they not miss a case.
Yes, it feels like painstaking intention was put into making it clear that should someone break the rules, it's actually much more important that they not miss a case.
There’s a tension between accountability and freedom from coercion. This court effort seems to me a sallow capitulation and abdication, bit no ruleset or enforcement mechanism can be complete...
There’s a tension between accountability and freedom from coercion.
This court effort seems to me a sallow capitulation and abdication, bit no ruleset or enforcement mechanism can be complete without non-governmental institutional support. This includes media, civic organizations, spitlritu communities, and neighborhood orgs. This requires a population sufficiently respurced to have time for familt, time for recreation, and time forncivic engagement.
I'm curious if there would be any commotion about Thomas from the GOP if they had a Republican in the presidency. Beyond the bad taste that the 3 Trump nominations put in most people's mouths, I...
I'm curious if there would be any commotion about Thomas from the GOP if they had a Republican in the presidency. Beyond the bad taste that the 3 Trump nominations put in most people's mouths, I don't think people view them as compromised in some way. Thomas has singularly casted major doubt on the integrity of the Court among the general public.
We seriously need to develop a solution that somehow makes SCOTUS appointments hinged less dramatically on presidential elections. Maybe something that effectively makes the nomination a rolling average of presidential mandates? Perhaps where each year the sitting president nominates someone to a 20-year term on a board, whose sole job is to elect a nominee to the SCOTUS when there's a vacancy.
I would say this code of ethics is better than nothing, but as the article states, these are reiterations of the code Justices have voluntarily held themselves to while behaving in the way that has drawn scrutiny and criticism. So, in my opinion, without any mechanism to apply this code of ethics, similar to their state and federal cohort, it is toothless and without effect with the exception of it's optics.
Exactly, this is another case of Congress' dereliction of duty and the media's constitutional illiteracy. Clarence Thomas should have been impeached and the Senate should have decided his fate but partisan politics won't allow that to happen
Having clear rules in place with expected consequences isn't antithetical to the legislative branch enforcing them. In fact it helps them.
I made no comment whatsoever on the ethics rules, if asked I would have said that I unequivocally support them and actually wish they were more strongly worded. The conversation being had in this thread is that there is an apparent lack of enforceability when in fact enforcement does lay, and always has laid, with the US Congress
I agree, but (and I am not saying this as anything close to a legal expert) I wonder if and how something could be scaffolded into our government without Constitutional change (which we all know wouldn't ever happen).
I'm just so frustrated by how it's clear SCOTUS Judges are enriching themselves unethically. I've seen scathing examples of how Conservative judges have done so and shockingly I'm really not cool with how Liberal judges have either, albeit I don't see them as remotely the same in infraction.
I wish that the people who have the power to fix the ways our Constitution is Outmoded didn't also benefit the most from it. The idea that we don't need to keep altering it is staggering, considering how many amendments we have passed. There is that part of me that sees our highest court gets to decide their own ethical guidelines and, oh by the way, they don't have to abide by them if they don't really want to and I wish we were the type of country that could grow in the ways we need to.
I'm reading through Caste by Isabel Wilkerson and it is the most cohesive argument I've ever read that the US has never been a moral state and it's only the population that has, reluctantly at many times, changed it for the positive. I had already begun shedding all the propaganda I had believed about our country since Obama's presidency. But Ms Wilkerson's book is surgically extensive with it's receipts and it ties so much together in a convincing and heartbreaking way.
I can’t help but think that if they had included some kind of enforcement mechanism, the discussion would be some variation of “we investigated ourselves and determined we did nothing wrong”. The US government is an adversarial system: the code of ethics is the rope that congress should use for hanging.
We don’t necessarily need to get into the constitutional weeds of impeachment. At minimum, we could require that they simply return any improper gifts and pay back any improperly paid expenses.
Forfeiture of the ill gotten gains by the local sheriff — I’d say also the shame, but it doesn’t appear the justices possess much of that.
What if a judge murders someone, or runs a red light? It’s not unconstitutional to punish them for breaking laws.
But there ends up being a political element to this. These sorts of cases would likely be perceived as partisan (whether or not it actually is). Murder or assault is relatively clear cut, corruption isn’t, and many authoritarian regimes use “corruption” as a vaguely defined charge to detain political rivals. Many democracies put the focus on impeachment first, because it helps minimize concerns over partisan abuse.
I think we have largely seen that impeachment is seen as a partisan exercise over the past few years. I’m not talking about removing them as a judge — I’m just suggesting that, as a bare minimum, judges shouldn’t be allowed to keep their bribes and other ill-gotten gains.
Sure, but there’s still no mechanism to enforce taking any ill-gotten gains without getting law enforcement or politicians involved.
What’s the issue here? I’m not seeing it. They can surrender their bribes or go to jail. They can still be a judge in jail, so there’s no constitutional issue.
What I want from the court is ethics and accountability. I don't see this as moving the needle for either. This is an unenforceable document full of "shoulds" instead of "shalls" and leaves everything ultimately still up to the individual justice. If this document isn't about making an enforceable code of ethics, then it's just an attempt to placate the public without actually making any change.
The commentary around recusals is also a ton of fun. It goes a long way to try and show the evils of recusal without discussing the downsides of bias or compromise. The argument that recusals bias the court against the petitioner ignores that their bias could be against the petitioner. It also argues that having a clear 5-4 decision, even with a biased judge being the tiebreaker, is better than a split decision. It's clear that having 9 justices on all cases is the most important thing, and none of these ethical suggestions should get in the way of that.
If it's absolutely vital to have 9 justices per case, perhaps the court could do with having 13 justices so that they could have the full 9 even with recusals and other issues that might draw a justice away for 38 vacations over the course of a year.
That's been proposed a couple of times recently - currently, as the Judiciary Act of 2023. Of course, the prospects for passage are non-existent with a Republican House majority. It shouldn't even be political. The growth of the docket alone would justify a larger Court - it's been 9 justices since 1869.
Yes, it feels like painstaking intention was put into making it clear that should someone break the rules, it's actually much more important that they not miss a case.
There’s a tension between accountability and freedom from coercion.
This court effort seems to me a sallow capitulation and abdication, bit no ruleset or enforcement mechanism can be complete without non-governmental institutional support. This includes media, civic organizations, spitlritu communities, and neighborhood orgs. This requires a population sufficiently respurced to have time for familt, time for recreation, and time forncivic engagement.
I'm curious if there would be any commotion about Thomas from the GOP if they had a Republican in the presidency. Beyond the bad taste that the 3 Trump nominations put in most people's mouths, I don't think people view them as compromised in some way. Thomas has singularly casted major doubt on the integrity of the Court among the general public.
We seriously need to develop a solution that somehow makes SCOTUS appointments hinged less dramatically on presidential elections. Maybe something that effectively makes the nomination a rolling average of presidential mandates? Perhaps where each year the sitting president nominates someone to a 20-year term on a board, whose sole job is to elect a nominee to the SCOTUS when there's a vacancy.
Non-binding and no way to enforce it = worthless platitude.
Sorry for typo, it's supposed to say "enforcement" not re-enforcement.
fixed
thanks!