232
A self imposed code of ethics that will have zero punishment for violations. This is not what people said when they said restrictions on the supreme court
To paraphrase someone else, it has enough should clauses to drive several favorable RV loans through.
Zero punishment AND overseen by themselves.
More like what you'd call guidelines....
The benefit of a self imposed code of ethics is it gives clear guidelines for impeachment. It's a "too little too late" situation, but congress absolutely can use that as a guidepost for both investigations and convictions.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse: "This is a long-overdue step by the justices, but a code of ethics is not binding unless there is a mechanism to investigate possible violations and enforce the rules. The honor system has not worked for members of the Roberts Court."
Kavanaugh: Sorry, I don’t do accountability.
The code leaves compliance to the justices themselves and does not create any other means of enforcement.
If the punishment is ~~a fine~~ nothing, then it's not even worth talking about.
It's for the feel goods and gives people something to point at when it becomes a point of contention again.
It does feel a little bit on the cuff of another big reveal doesn't it?
The justices said in an unsigned statement that they have long adhered to ethics standards.
Justice Thomas on the bench like:
Why would he be sweating?
He’s horny
I missed the part where the code would do anything at all about the sort of bribes Clarence Thomas took.
And how about next we add a term length?
That would require a constitutional amendment, which is a whole thing.
We would need an amendment to change the term, but we don't need an amendment to remove the fixed size of the court.
We could keep the life term, and just nominate an additional justice in November of the first and third year of every presidential term, which is about as far away from the presidential and midterm elections as we can get. When a justice dies or resigns, we just don't fill their seat. The size of the court increases with every appointment, and decreases with every death/resignation/impeachment.
I'm for making the court big. Make it inconsequential when one joins or leaves. Make it 100 and they can help 10x as many people a year.
And?
They can't even pass a budget that should be an automatic process. You really think they can handle a constitutional amendment right now?
Oh they can pass a constitutional amendment, it just won't be about term limits for SCOTUS. It would be more like denying access to abortion, presidents serve for life, or some other Christian-Nationalist shit reasons.
*christofascist also works
At this point in history, an amendment stating that 11/13 is Chocolate Chip Cookie Day would be impossible. Literally nothing could be popular enough to get past this process:
"An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification."
They can adopt a code but I doubt they will follow it
If they're defining the code then it might be really easy for them to follow, it just might not align with what we might think of as a code of ethics.
They don't follow laws, why would they follow code that they made up.
The people said "stop being corrupt" and their answer was "we typed what you said we should do into a word document".
They will absolutely keep accepting bribes because their new “ethics” has no penalties.
I grow tired of the bread and circus, Imperator.
You just need more lions. Lots of lions.
Correction: The Corrupt Court says it is adopting a sham code of ethics to fool the gullible.
Lol k
The Supreme Court's new Code of Conduct is just like if your town passed an anti-speeding law but has no police department.
Like if the town passed an anti-speeding law, but was entirely reliant on people reporting themselves for speeding, and also didn’t have any penalties for speeding.
I disagree.
It's been like the town's cops have been trying to bust people for speeding, but the town never actually posted signs declaring the speed limit. Congress can impeach justices who do not exhibit "good behavior", but there is no definition of what constitutes good or bad behavior.
This code of ethics is like the speeders in the town posting a 60mph speed limit sign in the town's school zones. They have zero intention of enforcing it themselves, and it's loose enough that they will never be close to breaking it, but it is an indication if the HoR and the Senate want to impeach for breaking it.
It's more like if you had officers to enforce the law, but they themselves don't always follow the law, and there are no consequences if they are convicted of crimes... What would that look like??
load more comments
(1 replies)
Infested by corruption, fanatic religiousness and extreme political prejudice. And they claim code of ethics?
Yeah right, Anyone who believes that bullshit is a moron.
Republicans always claimed to be the party of law and order, but in reality they are the party of lawlessness, extremism, corruption and even treason.
Justices file the same annual financial disclosure reports as other federal judges.
Can someone tell Justice Clarence Thomas, because he missed that memo. By like a lot. Like an RV size worth, maybe even a property size estate worth.
The Court will also consider whether amendments to its rules on the disclosure obligations of parties and counsel may be advisable.
The Court will assess whether it needs additional resources in its Clerk’s Office or Office of Legal Counsel to perform initial and ongoing review of recusal and other ethics issues.
That's two maybes for what sounds a lot like "no."
It’s about time they imposed some rules on themselves.
Just like the police!
And in other news, leopards can change their spots. Really.
Their moral code: Lie, Cheat, and Steal.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is adopting its first code of ethics, in the face of sustained criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some justices.
Many of those stories focused on Justice Clarence Thomas and his failure to disclose travel and other financial ties with wealthy conservative donors including Harlan Crow and the Koch brothers.
As recently as last week, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the justices could quiet some of the criticism and a Democratic push to impose an ethics code on the court by putting in place their own policy.
Durbin’s panel has been planning to subpoena Crow and conservative activist Leonard Leo about their roles in organizing and paying for justices’ luxury travel.
Crow has for more than two decades paid for nearly annual vacations, purchased from Thomas and others the Georgia home in which the justice’s mother still lives and helped pay for the private schooling for a relative.
The statement provided by Roberts said that the nine justices “reaffirm and restate foundational ethics principles and practices to which they subscribe in carrying out their responsibilities as Members of the Supreme Court of the United States.”
The original article contains 715 words, the summary contains 201 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Interesting. I wonder if all the questionable things Thomas got up to would be OK under this new code of conduct. If not, then they are agreeing his conduct was beyond the line.
It would be OK because there are no penalties for anything.
Right. I'm just wondering if they are even acknowledging that what he did is unethical, even if theres no consequences.
Scotus then: We have the highest of ethics standards, just we are the only ones able to hold ourselves to them Scotus now: We have a new code of ethics, it's just that we are still the only ones able to hold ourselves to them
LMAO
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
232 points (95.7% liked)
politics
18852 readers
4184 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.
- 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.
- 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