Is Roberts Timing Planned Alito, Thomas Exits?

[Fantine]

Like most of you, I'm shocked, disappointed and unsurprised that the Supreme Court made an ethics policy and promptly threw it in the trash.
Presiding over this is a Chief Justice who is always said to be concerned about his legacy.
The outright unchecked corruption and borderline treason of Thomas and Alito will justifiably be condemned by current and future historians. So what's up?
A political Chief Justice is, I believe waiting to ax them until there is a Republican president and Senate--even if in the meantime their graft piles up.
Should Trump win (heaven forbid) they'll be out the door, to be replaced by younger compromised replacements like Aileen Cannon.
Not that adding manipulation to shielding corruption would move him up from the reserved position of worst Chief Justice ever.
Jeffrey Toobin was very prophetic in writing about Roberts in "The Nine."

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Like most of you, I'm shocked, disappointed and unsurprised that the Supreme Court made an ethics policy and promptly threw it in the trash.
Presiding over this is a Chief Justice who is always said to be concerned about his legacy.
The outright unchecked corruption and borderline treason of Thomas and Alito will justifiably be condemned by current and future historians. So what's up?
A political Chief Justice is, I believe waiting to ax them until there is a Republican president and Senate--even if in the meantime their graft piles up.
Should Trump win (heaven forbid) they'll be out the door, to be replaced by younger compromised replacements like Aileen Cannon.
Not that adding manipulation to shielding corruption would move him up from the reserved position of worst Chief Justice ever.
Jeffrey Toobin was very prophetic in writing about Roberts in "The Nine."

Roberts just needs to do what is right.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Like most of you, I'm shocked, disappointed and unsurprised that the Supreme Court made an ethics policy and promptly threw it in the trash.
Presiding over this is a Chief Justice who is always said to be concerned about his legacy.
The outright unchecked corruption and borderline treason of Thomas and Alito will justifiably be condemned by current and future historians. So what's up?
A political Chief Justice is, I believe waiting to ax them until there is a Republican president and Senate--even if in the meantime their graft piles up.
Should Trump win (heaven forbid) they'll be out the door, to be replaced by younger compromised replacements like Aileen Cannon.
Not that adding manipulation to shielding corruption would move him up from the reserved position of worst Chief Justice ever.
Jeffrey Toobin was very prophetic in writing about Roberts in "The Nine."

What authority does the Chief Justice have to axe anybody?

 

[Fantine]

He certainly can enforce the ethics law.

He will read them the riot act and tell them he won't cover for them anymore.

 

[iluvatar5150]

He certainly can enforce the ethics law.

With what mechanism?

He will read them the riot act and tell them he won't cover for them anymore.

So, his enforcement mechanism is brow-beating them?

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

With what mechanism?



So, his enforcement mechanism is brow-beating them?

I don't think there is a mechanism of enforcement availabl, which is why congress should address the situation. But our current congree is incapacitated by MAGA.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Whatever powers CJ Roberts has to enforce ethical rules, it does not extend to forcing them to retire. If there are conflicts he might be able to induce a recusal in some specific cases.

 

[Pommer]

I don't think there is a mechanism of enforcement availabl, which is why congress should address the situation. But our current congree is incapacitated by MAGA.

The conundrum is that pesky “separation-of-powers” doctrine, again.

Any Act of Congress that impinges on the Judicial Branch will be adjudged as violating the doctrine; the Branches each make their own rules (which are in effect “laws” for how intra-branch discipline is to be applied)…Congress cannot impose requirements upon the Judiciary without first amending the Constitution to allow for such actions by the Legislative Branch over any objections that the Judiciary Branch.

The tl;dr “Ain’t gonna happen”

 

[Hans Blaster]

The conundrum is that pesky “separation-of-powers” doctrine, again.

Any Act of Congress that impinges on the Judicial Branch will be adjudged as violating the doctrine; the Branches each make their own rules (which are in effect “laws” for how intra-branch discipline is to be applied)…Congress cannot impose requirements upon the Judiciary without first amending the Constitution to allow for such actions by the Legislative Branch over any objections that the Judiciary Branch.

The tl;dr “Ain’t gonna happen”

Not true. By the Constitution, Congress has strong powers regarding the jurisdiction and organization of the courts. There are *binding* ethics rules for lower federal courts, but the SC is exempted from those by law. That law could be changed.

 

[Pommer]

Not true. By the Constitution, Congress has strong powers regarding the jurisdiction and organization of the courts. There are *binding* ethics rules for lower federal courts, but the SC is exempted from those by law. That law could be changed.

The whole point of the Separation-of-Powers Doctrine is to keep the Branches from encroaching, “too much” on the other Branches.

Courts rule over the Executive Branch but cannot compel a President to issue a Proclamation, or an Executive Order, something that is under the Chief-Executive’s purview.

Congress getting all up in SCOTUS’ internal business seems an “endstage” move and unwise.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The whole point of the Separation-of-Powers Doctrine is to keep the Branches from encroaching, “too much” on the other Branches.

Courts rule over the Executive Branch but cannot compel a President to issue a Proclamation, or an Executive Order, something that is under the Chief-Executive’s purview.

They rule on cases. That's all they are permitted to do.

Congress getting all up in SCOTUS’ internal business seems an “endstage” move and unwise.

They already set the rules for all other federal courts. SCOTUS isn't any different. It was Congress that created the circuit courts as courts of appeals between the trial courts and the Supreme Court. They could add another layer in between if they wanted to. It is Congress that put appeals in patent cases into the Federal Circuit (the name of a specific court located near the White House) rather than the various geographic circuits where most appeals are heard. Setting procedures for ethics rules is certainly within the power of Congress. Given the failure of the Supreme Court to set real rules for itself, it is the *duty* of Congress to create the rules for them.

 

[Pommer]

They rule on cases. That's all they are permitted to do.

Agreed

They already set the rules for all other federal courts. SCOTUS isn't any different. It was Congress that created the circuit courts as courts of appeals between the trial courts and the Supreme Court. They could add another layer in between if they wanted to. It is Congress that put appeals in patent cases into the Federal Circuit (the name of a specific court located near the White House) rather than the various geographic circuits where most appeals are heard. Setting procedures for ethics rules is certainly within the power of Congress. Given the failure of the Supreme Court to set real rules for itself, it is the *duty* of Congress to create the rules for them.

I will admit that I am up against the furthest wall of my knowledge on this topic, and will take this under advisement for later “mulling-over”, so lemme just say that I’ll stipulate (for now) that you are “correct”, do we honestly see anything coming out of the 118th Congress to address these issues?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Agreed

I will admit that I am up against the furthest wall of my knowledge on this topic, and will take this under advisement for later “mulling-over”, so lemme just say that I’ll stipulate (for now) that you are “correct”, do we honestly see anything coming out of the 118th Congress to address these issues?

I checked possible sources and found this article on jurisdiction that coincided with my memory of the topic:

Jurisdiction stripping - Wikipedia

As for this Congress (118th), I highly doubt it. The Senate, which has talked about ethics reform, is being slow to move and even if they somehow passed it, I doubt Speaker Johnson would even bring it to the floor and would probably call it an attack on JJ Alito and Thomas.