110

Amy Coney Barrett’s Call for a SCOTUS Ethics Code Comes With an Exasperating Rider (slate.com)

submitted 1 year ago by spaceghoti@lemmy.one to c/politics@lemmy.world

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently became the second member of the Supreme Court, joining Justice Elena Kagan, to explicitly support the adoption of a SCOTUS ethics code. It would be a “good idea” to adopt a code, she told an audience on Monday at the University of Minnesota Law School, “particularly so that we can communicate to the public exactly what it is that we are doing in a clearer way than perhaps we have been able to do so far.” That was admirable candor, not least because it must have ruffled some feathers among the likely holdouts on the court.

But then Barrett continued with an assurance that there is “unanimity among all nine justices that we should and do hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards possible.” Who was she kidding? Perhaps she had to concede something like that as a matter of politesse, but anyone who has been paying attention knows that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have not been holding themselves to the “highest ethical standards possible.” At best, they have grudgingly adhered to the bare-minimum legal requirements of their job, while flouting anything resembling the highest possible standards. Alito has even bragged of his belief that no institution can hold the justices accountable.

top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ChicagoTransplant@midwest.social 63 points 1 year ago

History has shown that allowing any body to regulate its own conduct with no oversight will not end well. Alito seems to think that because they're a separate branch, they're immune to any kind of regulation.

[-] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

Also, any body that can give itself money at the cost of ethics will do so. See Congress and their stock portfolios, police and civil forfeiture, executives and mortgaging the future of their companies, etc.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

"As I, and my colleague Justices, are charged with defining what is lawful, we cannot therefore be bound by it. I'm bound by no one and above all law, ethics, and morality as I am its arbiter. As a Supreme Court Justice, I'm pretty much an untouchable god, you see. As an example, in the years ahead I will use the powers I grant myself to seek out the author of this fictitious quote and bring to bear the full power of an unbridled Supreme Court with newly defined libel laws against the author." - Supreme Court Justice Alito probably

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Well, isn't regulation of the judiciary the responsibility of Congress? Don't think they'll be getting anything out of them any time soon.

[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

The highest ethical standards must be pretty lowly based on what we know the justices have been getting up to.

[-] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Why am I not surprised that Amy is a pearl necklace fan

this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023

110 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19096 readers

3244 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News