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.
deleted by creator
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.
It’s more than that. Punishments or not, what it does is set clear standards. If you do this, you are in the wrong, kinda thing. It leaves it less ambiguous, and makes it easier for them to be judged.
Except it doesn’t set any clear standards. It deliberately keeps the standards as vague "should"s while making presumption of their having followed them mandatory. Even then, the exceptions to even those "should"s are gaping holes that swallow the rules.
deleted by creator
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 finenothing, 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?
deleted by creator
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
Removed by mod
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.
Just gonna leave this here
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.
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??
And town lawmakers had a long tradition of speeding.
Lol k
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!
