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

[ThatRobGuy]

I think this shows that people have an unreasonable "purity" standard for SCOTUS judges. (or are pretending to because it's a quick way to score some cheap political points)

To clarify, I'm not suggesting there should be no standards. But this is clearly a targeted attack.


Before things were as heavily polarized as they are now, certain outlets reported on conflicts of interest in a more even handed way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/07/11/possible-ginsburg-conflicts-reported/d50cfe8c-659c-492e-b614-434913260fed/

The reality, supreme court justices are people just like the people in the other two branches...subject to human nature and political bias.

For the people calling out Thomas for having a 28 million dollar net worth and owning multiple rental properties and having a lavish portfolio... Ketanji Brown Jackson has a striking similar portfolio to Thomas...and through very similar strategies.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think this shows that people have an unreasonable "purity" standard for SCOTUS judges. (or are pretending to because it's a quick way to score some cheap political points)

By pointing out that the ethics standards which apply to Federal Judges don't apply to Supreme Court justices?

To clarify, I'm not suggesting there should be no standards. But this is clearly a targeted attack.

Based on recent reports of, for example, having a wealthy conservative donor secretly pay for private education for a Justice's child.

For the people calling out Thomas for having a 28 million dollar net worth and owning multiple rental properties and having a lavish portfolio... Ketanji Brown Jackson has a striking similar portfolio to Thomas...and through very similar strategies.

If the facts show a consistent issue among justices, doesn't that undermine the whole premise of this post?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

By pointing out that the ethics standards which apply to Federal Judges don't apply to Supreme Court justices?



Based on recent reports of, for example, having a wealthy conservative donor secretly pay for private education for a Justice's child.


If the facts show a consistent issue among justices, doesn't that undermine the whole premise of this post?

I think the major issue (in Thomas's case) was the lack of disclosure.

I'm hesitant to jump on board with the idea that "judges aren't allowed to have money or have their rich friends give them gifts, because that means they're on the take"

While that could be the case in some instances, I don't think people can immediately jump to that conclusion.

 

[adrianmonk]

I think the major issue (in Thomas's case) was the lack of disclosure.

I'm hesitant to jump on board with the idea that "judges aren't allowed to have money or have their rich friends give them gifts, because that means they're on the take"

While that could be the case in some instances, I don't think people can immediately jump to that conclusion.

Regarding the gifts issue, I don't think the issue is limited to Judges receiving gifts, but the lack of disclosure about it. Without the public disclosure, we do not know if these judges should have recused themselves in certain cases. Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter in Trump v Thompson which would appear as an attempt to shield his wife's text messages to Mark Meadows.

A code of ethics which determines disclosure of gifts, actions that must be taken in cases which could have a conflict of interest among other standards would increase the trust in the Supreme Court. Other Federal Judges have ethical requirements, so why not the Supreme Court as well ?

 

[HARK!]

They can't strike anything down until someone with standing files a lawsuit. Who would have standing?

The SCOTUS has standing.

Justice Alito says Congress can’t regulate Supreme Court, impose ethics reforms​

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that Congress doesn’t have the authority to impose ethics rules on the high court, defending himself and his colleagues as they’ve been under scrutiny from liberal lawmakers and activists for conflict of interest allegations in recent months.

His remarks make him the first justice to publicly push back against Democrats, who have prompted legislation to impose a code of ethics on the Supreme Court.

“Congress did not create the Supreme Court,” he told the Wall Street Journal Opinion writers in an interview published Friday. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

Justice Alito says Congress can’t regulate Supreme Court, impose ethics reforms

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that Congress doesn’t have the authority to impose ethics rules on the high court, defending himself and his colleagues as they’ve been under scrutiny from liberal lawmakers and activists for conflict of interest allegations in recent months.

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[Pommer]

The SCOTUS has standing.

Justice Alito says Congress can’t regulate Supreme Court, impose ethics reforms​

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that Congress doesn’t have the authority to impose ethics rules on the high court, defending himself and his colleagues as they’ve been under scrutiny from liberal lawmakers and activists for conflict of interest allegations in recent months.

His remarks make him the first justice to publicly push back against Democrats, who have prompted legislation to impose a code of ethics on the Supreme Court.

“Congress did not create the Supreme Court,” he told the Wall Street Journal Opinion writers in an interview published Friday. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

Justice Alito says Congress can’t regulate Supreme Court, impose ethics reforms

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that Congress doesn’t have the authority to impose ethics rules on the high court, defending himself and his colleagues as they’ve been under scrutiny from liberal lawmakers and activists for conflict of interest allegations in recent months.

www.washingtontimes.com

Congress holds all of the cards but can’t change the rules?
It’s almost like a “dare”! (Or someone savvy enough to know that the 118th congress isn’t going to attempt to “do anything”)

 

[HARK!]

Congress holds all of the cards but can’t change the rules?

Separation of powers refers to the division of a state's government into "branches", each with separate, independent powers and responsibilities, so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with those of the other branches. The typical division into three branches of government, sometimes called the trias politica model, includes a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. It can be contrasted with the fusion of powers in parliamentary and semi-presidential systems where there can be overlap in membership and functions between different branches, especially the executive and legislative. In most non-authoritarian jurisdictions, however, the judiciary almost never overlaps with the other branches, whether powers in the jurisdiction are separated or fused.

The intention behind a system of separated powers is to prevent the concentration of power by providing for checks and balances. The separation of powers model is often imprecisely and metonymically used interchangeably with the trias politica principle. While the trias politica model is a common type of separation, there are governments that have more or fewer than three branches.

More: Separation of powers - Wikipedia

 

[variant]

I think this shows that people have an unreasonable "purity" standard for SCOTUS judges. (or are pretending to because it's a quick way to score some cheap political points)

To clarify, I'm not suggesting there should be no standards. But this is clearly a targeted attack.


Before things were as heavily polarized as they are now, certain outlets reported on conflicts of interest in a more even handed way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/07/11/possible-ginsburg-conflicts-reported/d50cfe8c-659c-492e-b614-434913260fed/

The reality, supreme court justices are people just like the people in the other two branches...subject to human nature and political bias.

For the people calling out Thomas for having a 28 million dollar net worth and owning multiple rental properties and having a lavish portfolio... Ketanji Brown Jackson has a striking similar portfolio to Thomas...and through very similar strategies.

Every court in the US has a code of ethics and standards except one.

If the attack is targeted, it is being targeted correctly.

 

[variant]

I think the major issue (in Thomas's case) was the lack of disclosure.

I'm hesitant to jump on board with the idea that "judges aren't allowed to have money or have their rich friends give them gifts, because that means they're on the take"

While that could be the case in some instances, I don't think people can immediately jump to that conclusion.

The issue is self policing. People don't do that.

The reason they don't disclose these things are because they aren't forced to.

The reason they don't want to is because such things might make them look bad and they want to have their rich friends give them gifts without having to fill out a disclosure form.

Or, GASP having to recuse themselves because they have a conflict of interest.

 

[variant]

Separation of powers refers to the division of a state's government into "branches", each with separate, independent powers and responsibilities, so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with those of the other branches. The typical division into three branches of government, sometimes called the trias politica model, includes a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. It can be contrasted with the fusion of powers in parliamentary and semi-presidential systems where there can be overlap in membership and functions between different branches, especially the executive and legislative. In most non-authoritarian jurisdictions, however, the judiciary almost never overlaps with the other branches, whether powers in the jurisdiction are separated or fused.

The intention behind a system of separated powers is to prevent the concentration of power by providing for checks and balances. The separation of powers model is often imprecisely and metonymically used interchangeably with the trias politica principle. While the trias politica model is a common type of separation, there are governments that have more or fewer than three branches.

More: Separation of powers - Wikipedia

Ok, so what is the check on the Supreme Courts lack of ethical standards and practices? Seems like Congress is fully within their power to pass laws about it...

Nothing about imposing ethics standards on the court interferes with them doing their constitutionally mandated duty.

 

[Pommer]

Separation of powers refers to the division of a state's government into "branches", each with separate, independent powers and responsibilities, so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with those of the other branches. The typical division into three branches of government, sometimes called the trias politica model, includes a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. It can be contrasted with the fusion of powers in parliamentary and semi-presidential systems where there can be overlap in membership and functions between different branches, especially the executive and legislative. In most non-authoritarian jurisdictions, however, the judiciary almost never overlaps with the other branches, whether powers in the jurisdiction are separated or fused.

The intention behind a system of separated powers is to prevent the concentration of power by providing for checks and balances. The separation of powers model is often imprecisely and metonymically used interchangeably with the trias politica principle. While the trias politica model is a common type of separation, there are governments that have more or fewer than three branches.

More: Separation of powers - Wikipedia

Oh, it could require a Constitutional Amendment, to be sure, but that is done in the [checks notes] legislative branch.

 

[HARK!]

Oh, it could require a Constitutional Amendment, to be sure, but that is done in the [checks notes] legislative branch.

Checks notes more carefully...

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

It's not "The Legislative Branch" that puts an Amendment in place. That would upset the balance of powers.

 

[NxNW]

The SCOTUS has standing.

Alito is not SCOTUS.

Justice Alito says Congress can’t regulate Supreme Court, impose ethics reforms​

Complete lack of accountability sounds lovely.

 

[HARK!]

Alito is not SCOTUS.

Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. (/əˈliːtoʊ/ ə-LEE-toh; born April 1, 1950) is an American jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Samuel Alito - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[HARK!]

Complete lack of accountability sounds lovely.

I prefer a Republic.

 

[Say it aint so]

Can you explain, how exactly a code of ethics would benefit democrats over republicans ?

Must....bite...tongue.

 

[Pommer]

Checks notes more carefully...

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

It's not "The Legislative Branch" that puts an Amendment in place. That would upset the balance of powers.

You’ve proven my point for me and yet declared victory somehow.
The ball gets its start by rolling through Congress.

 

[variant]

You’ve proven my point for me and yet declared victory somehow.
The ball gets its start by rolling through Congress.

It is Justice Alito's opinion that congress can't pass laws mandating ethical standards for the court.

He would need to tell us what part of the constitution needs to be amended that says congress can't simply pass a law.

 

[HARK!]

You’ve proven my point for me and yet declared victory somehow.
The ball gets its start by rolling through Congress.

Apparently you are still completely missing the point Congress doesn't ratify Amendments to the Constitution. That is left up to the States. Congress can make a suggestion; but so can I; and the states don't need Congress to hold a Con Con.

The States created Congress. The States can abolish Congress.

 

[Pommer]

Apparently you are still completely missing the point Congress doesn't ratify Amendments to the Constitution. That is left up to the States. Congress can make a suggestion; but so can I; and the states don't need Congress to hold a Con Con.

The States created Congress. The States can abolish Congress.

What Article says that?