Legal experts say its time for the Supreme Court’s ethics code to grow some teeth
Legal experts are lamenting the lack of an enforceable judicial ethics code, with some calling for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s recusal, following a New York Times report that a symbol of the “Stop the Steal” movement to reject the 2020 election was flown outside Alito’s home in the wake of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Ten leading legal experts told Salon Friday that the conduct — the flying of an upside-down flag, a known symbol of the movement to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, at a justice’s home — appears to violate the Supreme Court’s own ethics code, adopted last last year, by creating an appearance of bias.
Those experts said it’s far past time for the nine justices who enjoy lifetime appointments to hold themselves to the highest ethical standards. But, they noted, the Supreme Court has shown itself reluctant to do so.
“The situation is out of control,” Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush who worked with Justice Alito on his 2006 Senate confirmation, told Salon. “This is after the insurrection, so it’s really him weighing in, getting involved publicly in a dispute over the insurrection.”
There’s pretty much zero oversight for a supreme court justice, right? I’m kinda surprised he didn’t just lynch a few brown and/or gay people in his front yard because doing so would have equal consequence - none.
Oh ,don’t worry.
We asked them if they need oversight. And every single SC judge said there’s no reason any of them need oversight.
Which is apparently enough to convince moderates Dems that we don’t need to do anything
Oh this guy again. Yeah, it’s all the Democrats’ fault. Every time, for everything.
The bill went along party lines out of committee, 11 Democrats in favor 10 Republicans against.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/senate-panel-set-vote-us-supreme-court-ethics-reform-2023-07-20/
Dead due on arrival though, due to unanimous republican opposition in both the senate and house (controlled by Republicans). Even if you wanted to argue for Democrats overturning the filibuster or something, it still wouldn’t solve the issue of the house. Anyways the point is, republicans are far more of a problem for judicial reform than your “moderate dems.”
Shh. You’re ruining their bOtH SiDeS narrative with inconvenient facts!
Wouldn’t that have to be an act of Congress, which is not controlled by the “moderates Dems”
You think “making SC justices accountable” wouldn’t get more Dems elected?
FDR was progressive enough and voters knew he was trying to help, that people got him that kind of supermajority.
Granted, the “moderate” Dems still stopped him from passing universal healthcare 80 years ago, but at that point voters would have eventually replaced them.
Instead the “moderates” took power and convinced voters trying is pointless, and now they pretend to be surprised when turnout is bad.
That’s kind of the whole rub with “moderate” Dems. They have to walk a right rope where just enough people are politically engaged to beat Republicans, but not so many that theres no excuse for not doing shit.
It’s like when that NBA guy was betting for his team to win, but not beat the spread. So he’d make “mistakes” in the game and fake injuries.
You lose more when you’re not trying to win by as much as you can. But if you get more money (campaign donations from billionaires and corporations) it’s what you care more about than if the team gets a W.
“You think “making SC justices accountable” wouldn’t get more Dems elected?”
Not sure where you got that from? I was just saying the Dems don’t control the house, and the house would have to make those accountability guidelines.
Is Dem leadership out there on the bully pulpit talking about how many more seats we need and where we should focus?
No?
They’re not? They just stopped talking about?
Like, this shit is literally what party leaders are supposed to be doing, instead Hakeem Jefferies are Chuck Schumer are running around talking about how funding Israel’s genocide is so important and painting peaceful protesters as the real villains. As is Biden.
The president and Dem leaders in the Senate and House don’t represent the priorities of their voters.
In theory he can be impeached.
In practice, he can’t be impeached.
While I get what you mean, they aren’t immune to prosecution for acts outside of their role. He would hopefully still get arrested and charged for lynching people. (Hopefully)
Oh please… Lol
Tried, convicted, appealed all the way up to his own court, conviction overturned.
He’d get a blanket pardon for the duration of his appointment to that date. It wouldn’t even go to trial.
I mean, his fellow judges might be corrupt enough to do so, but he couldn’t sit on the judging panel for that.
They don’t recuse themselves if their wife was part of an insurrection and there are no consequences for that.
Could he not? I’m genuinely interested, because I was under the impression that there wasn’t anything that could force the justices to recuse themselves.
Anything that could directly effect them financially or if there is a reason that could cause bias is really when they are supposed to recuse. He lied and said his wife’s actions in Jan 6 didn’t effect his judgement on that case but no one could accept murder charges not effecting him financially in any way.
But Clarence Thomas accepted gifts from people who then argued in front of the Supreme Court without recusing himself without facing any consequences, so is there anything to stop it?
I understand how you could compare the two situations but I can also see how they can lie about the gift being unrelated, where them being the charged being prosecuted can’t really lie his way out of showing up. Also, it would look ridiculous for him to walk back and forth across the room, he’d need a rolly chair.
In practice they are immune.
What was the case where charges were brought for lynching someone against a supreme Court judge? I must have missed that one