Senate Judiciary Committee sends legislation imposing code of ethics on Supreme Court to full Senate

[durangodawood]

Wait, if it doesn't matter what's in the bill, how is passing this bill a power grab?

This would turn up the spotlight thats already on Alito and Thomas's corruption.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Leave it alone. If any commits a crime Charge them and try them.

OK. From the reporting available, it would seem that J. Thomas and perhaps J. Alito along with their benefactors might be in violation of:

18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

Let's start there.

 

[Blade]

Hey HARK! Yeah I saw AOC talking about how the SC needed "code of ethics" because you know they just do what ever they want. haha

 

[JSRG]

It does not matter what the text says. That's the problem with Dems. They violate the constitution as it is. They use these these things as excuses when they want power. Lockdowns, mandated shots . censorship. They think nothing of these things. Sorry to say, neither do their hardcore supporters.

So you're saying it doesn't matter what the law says, it inherently is a problematic power grab. It could say literally anything and it would instantly be a power grab? That doesn't make sense at all.

For the record, I do not particularly care for the Democrats (admittedly, I don't particularly care for the Republicans either, though I would say my dislike of the Democrats is higher). Nevertheless, this bill seems a good idea and something like this should have been passed quite a while ago, I think. I haven't seen plausible reason for opposition, at least in this topic, outside of "the Democrats are behind it and that by itself makes it bad."

Of course, perhaps there is a legitimate problem with the specific things the bill is asking for, like maybe they think specific things listed shouldn't be counted as ethical violations. Okay, so what changes should be made to fix it? Surely changes could be made to make it more palatable if there's a problem, unless the problem with the bill is simply that it's trying to put any ethic rules on the Supreme Court. And it seems rather silly to claim that while every other judge is subject to ethical rules, somehow the highest court in the country should not be.

 

[Arcangl86]

Of course, perhaps there is a legitimate problem with the specific things the bill is asking for, like maybe they think specific things listed shouldn't be counted as ethical violations. Okay, so what changes should be made to fix it? Surely changes could be made to make it more palatable if there's a problem, unless the problem with the bill is simply that it's trying to put any ethic rules on the Supreme Court. And it seems rather silly to claim that while every other judge is subject to ethical rules, somehow the highest court in the country should not be.

The interesting thing is, while the law requires the creation of a Code of Conduct, it is up to the Court to produce it. And any discipline for violating it will be determined by the judicial branch. So the separation of powers concern doesn't make sense to me.

 

[ralliann]

OK. From the reporting available, it would seem that J. Thomas and perhaps J. Alito along with their benefactors might be in violation of:

18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

Let's start there.

Then if there is Evidence enough to charge, then charge him with a crime.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then if there is Evidence enough to charge, then charge him with a crime.

Frankly I think it is highly unlikely that the DOJ will actually charge a Justice (or their briber) unless it *extremely obvious* to the level where senate removal after impeachment seems almost certain. An unfortunate state, but we should not equate uncharged behavior with with acceptable behavior.

 

[ralliann]

Frankly I think it is highly unlikely that the DOJ will actually charge a Justice (or their briber) unless it *extremely obvious*

"Extremely obvious" = have enough to charge (like with Joe Biden and family). See they don';t care about that because they are corrupt....So, you are confirming what I said, They want to use it to attack justices in the supreme court, to nullify their power of office, in the separation of powers. No surprises here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"Extremely obvious" = have enough to charge (like with Joe Biden and family). See they don';t care about that because they are corrupt....So, you are confirming what I said, They want to use it to attack justices in the supreme court, to nullify their power of office, in the separation of powers. No surprises here.

Good grief, quit trying to twist what I said. (And for the record I don't think the evidence available regarding J. Thomas and Harlan Crow rises quite to that 'obvious' standard. And maybe I should have written 'obvious and egregious'.)

 

[ralliann]

Good grief, quit trying to twist what I said.

I don't think so. Either you have enough to charge a person with a crime or you don't. You don't lower the standard so that you can get someone easier.

(And for the record I don't think the evidence available regarding J. Thomas and Harlan Crow rises quite to that 'obvious' standard.

In other words there is not sufficient evidence to charge him with anything.

 

[Valletta]

OK. From the reporting available, it would seem that J. Thomas and perhaps J. Alito along with their benefactors might be in violation of:

18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

Let's start there.

Joe Biden is the best fit.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to send legislation imposing a code of ethics on the Supreme Court to the full Senate floor for consideration.

The vote was along party lines, 11-10, with Democrats using their slight majority to muscle it through.

The legislation is “as dead as fried chicken,” according to Sen. John Kennedy, Louisiana Republican, who noted it won’t receive the necessary 60 votes in the Senate to pass or even be taken up in the GOP-controlled House.

Senate Judiciary Committee sends legislation imposing code of ethics on Supreme Court to full Senate

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to send legislation imposing a code of ethics on the Supreme Court to the floor for consideration.

www.washingtontimes.com

What a ridiculous waste of time. Even if the President signed it into law; the SCOTUS could strike it down as unconstitutional.

Maybe these guys should just open up the Constitution and read it, to learn about the separation of powers.

The Supreme Court doesn't have absolute power. In fact the courts rulings could be ignored, theoretically, if they refuse to submit to US laws, simply by people ignoring them. If Republicans continue to politicize the court, and refuse to make it submit to ethical standards, that could eventually happen.

This is analogous to what happens in the UK. Their high court merely advises Parliment on the constitutionality of laws, they can't overturn laws or impose new law. Given the courts there are apolitical, most people listen to what their court has to say.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't think so. Either you have enough to charge a person with a crime or you don't. You don't lower the standard so that you can get someone easier.

See, that's not what I said. I said nothing about lowering the standards.

In other words there is not sufficient evidence to charge him with anything.

Arggh.

You really don't seem to understand. I'm not talking about lowering standards, I am just being realistic. Prominent people are *less* likely to be charged when the same level of evidence of a crime is present. Prosecutors don't want to look foolish. Prominent people also tend to have access to good legal advice. They can pick apart even the tiniest weakness in a case. Is that fair? No, but it is reality.

Finally, the US Department of Justice has many cases each term before the Supreme Court. (So many that there is a specific high-ranking official at the DOJ called the Solicitor General, whose sole purpose is to argue cases before the Supreme Court and other appellate courts.) The DOJ would be unwise to go after a Supreme Court justice without evidence so strong even their partisan allies would say that they should leave the court and face criminal justice. (In the case of J. Thomas or J. Alito, something like half of the Republicans in the Senate and the House saying things like "he needs to go and we will remove him". We're not even close to that.)

This near immunity from prosecution that effectively occurs (as disgusting as that notion of privilege is) is exactly *why* the needs to be a code of ethics with teeth for the justices of the Supreme Court. It would repair the appearance of integrity and reduce the incentive to take advantage of their positions of impunity.

 

[ralliann]

See, that's not what I said. I said nothing about lowering the standards.

Arggh.

You really don't seem to understand. I'm not talking about lowering standards, I am just being realistic. Prominent people are *less* likely to be charged when the same level of evidence of a crime is present. Prosecutors don't want to look foolish. Prominent people also tend to have access to good legal advice. They can pick apart even the tiniest weakness in a case. Is that fair? No, but it is reality.

Finally, the US Department of Justice has many cases each term before the Supreme Court. (So many that there is a specific high-ranking official at the DOJ called the Solicitor General, whose sole purpose is to argue cases before the Supreme Court and other appellate courts.) The DOJ would be unwise to go after a Supreme Court justice without evidence so strong even their partisan allies would say that they should leave the court and face criminal justice. (In the case of J. Thomas or J. Alito, something like half of the Republicans in the Senate and the House saying things like "he needs to go and we will remove him". We're not even close to that.)

This near immunity from prosecution that effectively occurs (as disgusting as that notion of privilege is) is exactly *why* the needs to be a code of ethics with teeth for the justices of the Supreme Court. It would repair the appearance of integrity and reduce the incentive to take advantage of their positions of impunity.

Nope

 

[KCfromNC]

Wait, if it doesn't matter what's in the bill, how is passing this bill a power grab?

Well, you see, it's the "Dems" doing it, so QED.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nope

That was quite the argument you made.

 

[JSRG]

This is analogous to what happens in the UK. Their high court merely advises Parliment on the constitutionality of laws, they can't overturn laws or impose new law. Given the courts there are apolitical, most people listen to what their court has to say.

Correct me if I am wrong, but does not the UK not have a constitution to begin with? Someone can't strike down laws as unconstitutional if there is not a constitution. It's simply a different setup for government. There isn't any "higher document" that all laws must comply with. While there is technically something considered a "constitution" in the UK, it can be changed just as easily as any other law as far as I understand, thereby really making it more a body of law than a Constitution (to me, what makes something a Constitution rather than a simple law is that there is a separate mechanism for changing it than a Law, like how Ireland requires a popular referendum to amend the Constitution or the US's 2/3 of each house of congress plus 3/4 of state legislatures needing to agree to any constitutional change).

 

[FireDragon76]

Correct me if I am wrong, but does not the UK not have a constitution to begin with? Someone can't strike down laws as unconstitutional if there is not a constitution. It's simply a different setup for government. There isn't any "higher document" that all laws must comply with. While there is technically something considered a "constitution" in the UK, it can be changed just as easily as any other law as far as I understand, thereby really making it more a body of law than a Constitution (to me, what makes something a Constitution rather than a simple law is that there is a separate mechanism for changing it than a Law, like how Ireland requires a popular referendum to amend the Constitution or the US's 2/3 of each house of congress plus 3/4 of state legislatures needing to agree to any constitutional change).

A constitution is just a body of law.

 

[Pommer]

Correct me if I am wrong, but does not the UK not have a constitution to begin with? Someone can't strike down laws as unconstitutional if there is not a constitution. It's simply a different setup for government. There isn't any "higher document" that all laws must comply with. While there is technically something considered a "constitution" in the UK, it can be changed just as easily as any other law as far as I understand, thereby really making it more a body of law than a Constitution (to me, what makes something a Constitution rather than a simple law is that there is a separate mechanism for changing it than a Law, like how Ireland requires a popular referendum to amend the Constitution or the US's 2/3 of each house of congress plus 3/4 of state legislatures needing to agree to any constitutional change).

England’s laws are sometimes hundreds of years old…they’ve got a large body of jurisprudence to fall back upon and have built a sturdy nation in that fashion.
The USA didn’t have that although the founders used the “common law” as an unpinning for the framework for the Constitution to ride upon.

Think of a castle and a prefab high rise, if in architectural terms.

 

[JSRG]

A constitution is just a body of law.

A body of law that requires a different mechanism to change than a regular law and upon which all other laws rely (in other words, other laws cannot contradict the constitution). As far as I am aware, that is not the case in the UK.