SCOTUS Releases New ‘Code of Conduct’
However, the rules never technically applied to SCOTUS even though Chief Justice John Roberts said the justices had applied them themselves.
The Supreme Court has released an official Code of Conduct after the Democrats kept going after Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife for…nothing.
“The undersigned Justices are promulgating this Code of Conduct to set out succinctly and gather in one place the ethics rules and principles that guide the conduct of the Members of the Court,” wrote the justices.
The Code of Conduct is not new, either. It’s the same rules that have been in place.
However, the rules never technically applied to SCOTUS even though Chief Justice John Roberts said the justices had applied them themselves.
So the Court codified the rules. Maybe this will shut up the Democrats, but I doubt it:
For the most part these rules and principles are not new: The Court has long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules, that is, a body of rules derived from a variety of sources, including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary, ethics advisory opinions issued by the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct, and historic practice. The absence of a Code, however, 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. To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Bad idea. The leftists will ignore them and the right will be hoist upon the petard.
So leaking court documents before they are officially released is out or not?
Just another avenue for the left to do whatever they please, and the right has to follow the rules.
As long as the court leans right, democrats want to control the court. When the court leans left, the right better keep their farking hands off of it and leave the court alone.
When the court leans left, judicial review and precedence shall not be messed with. When the court leans right, everything they do is up for question.
When the court leans left, all eminencies and penumbras apply throughout the land. When the court leans right, all rulings are ignored, especially when those rulings relate to the 2nd Amendment.
The SC gave into lectures on ethics from scoundrels.
Say what you think is a good code of conduct.
This is good news. I wish we had a Code of Ethics when the Left-Wing Liberals controlled the Supreme Court, which they will again someday, as the pendulum surely swings back and forth. Every governmental group should have some kind of Code of Ethics. It may not be always be enforced, but at least it gives you a benchmark for trying to successfully remove a radical left-wing Justice.
Interesting parallelism:
Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people; they fix for the people the principles of their political creed.
—Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802. ME 10:325
They should officially name it the Ketanji Brown-Jackson code of conduct.
Will this code be useful to reign in the current rash of Kangaroo court cases?
Who leaked (JohnRoberts) the Dobbs decision (JohnRoberts) to the press? (JohnRoberts).
It’s a mystery wrapped in a riddle…
In the interest of transparency, the justices should trade their dowdy black robes for clear, diaphanous ponchos. This would shift much of the court watching to justice Barrett.
Mary Chastain: The Supreme Court has released an official Code of Conduct after the Democrats kept going after Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife for…nothing.
Reporting is that Thomas accepted all-expense vacations, tuition for his grand-nephew, the purchase and renovation of his mother’s house while she still lives there, and what amounts to a free luxury RV. He has also repeatedly misreported his financials.
Mary Chastain: So the Court codified the rules. Maybe this will shut up the Democrats
Other judges are subject to oversight. Corruption will seep into any situation without accountability. Publishing the rules puts members of the court on notice, but without some sort of oversight, they are still unaccountable.
Win a Free Vacation! Just become a Supreme Court justice, and people will beat a path to your door with free stuff.
And? What is wrong with this? Since when is a judge not allowed to have rich friends, or to accept their hospitality? There was nothing even slightly unethical about this, and it remains ethical under the new code.
No, he hasn’t. When he joined the court he asked whether these things were reportable and was advised they were not. Now that the rules have changed he will report any further such “gifts”. End of story. There is no there there, and there never was.
Why would they do that? What’s in it for them? If you have good friends who are rich and generous, they will be so whether you’re a supreme court justice or a plumber. And if you don’t then you still won’t.
Milhouse: What is wrong with this?
Can’t imagine why billionaires with political axes to grind would want to cozy up to Supreme Court justices and give them luxury vacations and RVs. Never mind.
No, I can’t imagine why they would want to do that. Unless they are parties to a case before the court, what possible advantage could friendship with a justice give them?
You do understand, don’t you, that a court has no power at all to do anything, unless it has a case properly before it? That is the major constraint on the judicial branch, and the one that prevents it from becoming a dictatorship, as it has become in Israel, largely because it threw off that constraint.
Milhouse: No, I can’t imagine why they would want to do that.
Nice work—if you can get it.
If you are appointed to a high court, and suddenly billionaires start cozying up to you, it’s not a good look. Even if you think it might be “legal,” it is wrong for judges to accept lavish gifts from billionaires.
Report: Harlan Crow Has a Stake in 4 SCOTUS Cases — and Thomas Hasn’t Recused.
“Reporting is that Thomas accepted all-expense vacations,….”
No. Not ‘reporting’.
Lies.
The leftists are lying about Thomas as they have lied about him from day one.
Now go crawl back into your sewage.
They are not lies. Thomas has never made any great secret of these vacations, and when asked he readily acknowledged that he had indeed gone on them. What’s dishonest in the reporting is the insinuation that there was something wrong with this, and that he infringed a nonexistent requirement to report them.
How about an Executive Branch code of conduct? I think it should forbid taking money from Chinkmaster Xi, and forbid the FBI from censoring commentary. That’s just for starters …
Azathoth: No. Not ‘reporting’. Lies.
There is documentary evidence to support the allegations, even photos. The vacations are what people win on gameshows. A luxury RV behind every door (if you’re a Supreme Court justice with no accountability).
walls: How about an Executive Branch code of conduct?
That already exists, with multiple avenues of oversight and accountability.