541
Classic “we have investigated ourselves, and admit to no evidence of wrongdoing”
Close, but they didn't even claim to investigate themselves. They just created a document of theoretical standards they pinky swear they will follow in the future but that they claim no one has the power to actually judge them by.
Anyways they're wrong, congress has the power to regulate the supreme court, including removing justices. Good luck finding a 2/3rd vote for that though.
Anyways they’re wrong, congress has the power to regulate the supreme court, including removing justices. Good luck finding a 2/3rd vote for that though.
Psh, SCOTUS has already determined that the Congress does not have the power. Clearly, when the framers of the Constitution wrote in all those clauses about oversight, the framers didn't actual mean that. /s
"I have decided that Marbury v Madison is no longer binding precedent, and therefore SCOTUS has no constitutionally-derived right of judicial review."
President could do this. In fact, I'll bet $100 in a GOP president doing this in the next 20 years.
SCOTUS only has power because we chose to believe that SCOTUS has powers. The only real branch that enforce the law is the Executive branch and that's only because they have the Police and the Military on their side.
My first reaction when I saw it was that it appears to be the case that the justices are not only corrupt, but stupid. Or pathological. Or both.
It's not just that it's unenforceable - even though it's unenforceable, it also goes out of its way to be weak and mealy-mouthed. They couldn't even manage to make any clear statements - it's all vaguely non-specific gestures that boil down to "we sort of think that justices maybe oughta not do things that might look bad to other people." As if the whole notion of judicial ethics is so far outside of their awareness that they not only can't impose any, but can't even manage to put together a passable pretense.
Presumably it was supposed to help - to make it look as if they do actually have some ethics. And it resoundingly failed.
What it did for me was move me from reasonably sure that at least some of them are corrupt to dead certain that they all are, and not only corrupt but so grossly corrupt that they don't even know how to pretend otherwise.
“the absence of a code has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the justices of this court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules."
Who has misunderstood this? Oh, the justices of the Supreme Court themselves did. Good they remind themselves now, that they are restricted by ethics rules. Sad that they had to be reminded of it. Even more sad, that they can't specify the ethics rules, because if they would they immediately would call out the ones who did clearly not follow them. That also does not speak for them, because it means the ones who did not follow ethics rules in fact are still unrestricted by them.
This is worse than ignoring the problem. It is admitting that they were and are the problem and admitting they were and are unwilling to do something against it. Well done. This will be teaching material for everyone in the justice system for years to come.
The current Supreme Court is made up of 9 people who have lifetime appointments, no oversight, and no viable way to hold a stray judge accountable.
Until this changes, any "code of ethics" is completely worthless and unenforceable, and therefore isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Anything like this without an independent method of oversight and enforcement isn't a "law" or "code" that will be rigidly enforced, but merely a set of guidelines that can be safely ignored the nanosecond it becomes inconvenient.
Technically, a judge or justice can be impeached and/or removed, but I get what you mean
Yeah that's why I said no viable way. It's the only actual way they can be removed, but the chances of that happening anytime in the foreseeable future are virtually non-existent.
It's an Ethics Code alright, the code just happens to read "G. O. F. U. C. K. Y. O. U. R. S. E. L. F."
"B E S U R E T O D R I N K Y O U R O V A L T I N E"
They’re just guidelines. . .
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
541 points (98.7% liked)
politics
19097 readers
2939 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS