While it's widely seen as a good thing that the Supreme Court has released a code of conduct, its lack of an enforcement mechanism and its "shoulds" instead of "shalls" are drawing criticism.
Term limits-say 15 years. The selection process needs to be de-politicalized. Have a ready pool of extremely well qualified candidates and then select them by lottery. Being seated politically as they are now-they stay political- far from being blind justice. Justice is blind. As blind as you can get it. American Justices are inclined to have 20/20 vision.
The Big Picture ran a piece (a Q&A with Term Limit the Court) that gets into this question. They are proposing 18 years, but they have a good argument to make!
Nine justices are selected at random. Similar to the three judges appeal courts. Should one judge be unavailable then there are still nine to decide an issue.
A supreme court Inspector General to investigate questions of ethics.
Expand the court. You will never depoliticize the court until membership in right wingnut organizations like The Federalist Society becomes disqualifying, and fraudulent and invented premises like "money = speech" are no longer the law of the land.
This is how we should select our presidents, too! Instead of 15 year terms, though, how about 6 and out? No 8 years of too much, and no 4 years of too little? What do you think??
I like it because it takes money out of it....it's how we should select applicants to elite schools...from a pool with a cut off average say of 75 % grade average. Selecting the pool for the presidency would be more challenging but it could be done....certainly the chances of a TRUMP being pooled out of a decent pooling would be lower. It would take charisma and marketing out of the presidential selection too.
I agree! I've long thought about writing a book called The Lottery, where any qualified voter is subject to becoming president. (A lottery is required because no sane American will step forward to run.) The result could be most entertaining! Got the idea from the movie/series Designated Survivor.
The fact that they included no enforcement and nobody to be responsible for investigations proves that the entire idea is a con. The members of the outlaw faction of SCOTUS really do believe they are functionally the Gods of America and can do whatever they want,
Soooo disappointed in the "liberal" justices who signed onto this bowl of pablum. I found the predicate language of a "misunderstanding" by the public (aka us silly voters) to be smug and arrogant in the extreme. This is nothing more than an ill-disguised and ill-conceived pacifier. It is designed to be toothless-friendly.
It's "widely seen" as a good thing because that's the way John Roberts wants it to look. But John Roberts is just as corrupt as Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. After all, all six of them committed perjury during their confirmation hearings when they expressed fidelity to the rule of law and stare decisis. That makes them felons.
And Roberts and his wife are the greatest scam artists of all through her headhunter operation for lawyers and firms for whom they magically find jobs at the Supreme Court and at white shoe law firms throughout the country thereafter, all the while taking a percentage from both employee and employer. None of it is reported or disclosed, nor are any of her clients ever revealed, even though we just know for certain that they regularly appear before Roberts while lining his pockets for doing so.
This so-called code is nothing more than Roberts's half-assed attempt to avoid a subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee for all justices, their benefactors, and their beneficiaries.
One hallmark of a profession (CPAs, attorneys, doctors, etc.) is its adherence to a Code of Ethics. As a retired academic (PhD Accounting and CPA) I taught the required ethics course in our masters of accounting program. CPAs, in most if not all states, have to pass a separate ethics exam after they pass the CPA exam. They are also bound by SEC laws and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (passed after multiple auditing failures of major corporations). The rules to determine if an auditor is "independent" are lengthly and complex, and for good reason. The Supreme Court's Code is "baby steps" (see What About Bob movie - classic Bill Murray and Richard Dreyfus). Congress can and should step up and add accountability for the Justices. And, while they're at it, they need to address stock trading by members of Congress.
The Constitution guarantees life tenure only if the judge has “good behavior,” therefore inviting Congress to flesh out what “good behavior” is, including by implication a mechanism for enforcing the standard. So Congress should do its job and pass a code with teeth.
Article 3 provides “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour. . .” It’s up to Congress to define “good behavior” which includes more than simply not doing something impeachable. Not showing up at the job or hearing an oral argument while drunk is not a high crime or misdemeanor, but would certainly be bad behavior.
Actually, the FBI could start arresting them for perjury, which Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett committed when they professed fidelity to the rule of law and stare decisis at their confirmation hearings. They lied under oath.
Thank you for the detailed description of this scam. As another noted, I’m deeply disappointed that the competent justices (the ones that haven’t been bought & paid for) signed on to this fraud.
If the majority wasn’t focused on pure partisan hackery supporting the GQP agenda, this would be the top news story on Fox noise and every right-wing outlet for weeks. Their silence is proof positive that this is a useless fraud and WILL NOT have any effect on the continued bribery of the majority members of the Robert’s Kangaroo court.
So sad that the other three lacked the spine to object.
So.... basically.... it's a Band Aid. To pretend like they've done SOMETHING. Yeah, let's bring on term limits. And the same rules for firing them as we all have at our workplaces: if you steal, if you lie, if you cheat on your taxes, if you engage in sexual harassment - you are GONE.
While we are pipe dreaming-a large enough pool would reduce the chances of a Federalist Society Judge. But America is not about to change its constitution. Sadly, it is tied too it like fundamentalists to the Quran or the bible. Meanwhile other Western nations like Canada have updated their constitution.
This "code of conduct" is more an opportunity for misconduct as has occurred, is occurring and will occur. This code has no teeth. Pure window dressing for the Tribe of Nine who will continue to do as they damned well please. Six of the nine are rogue jurists, and they plan to keep it that way.
Congress writes laws. Congress isn't the right branch to come up with a code of conduct for SCOTUS. It's the Administration that makes rules.
The President needs to appoint a commission comprised of retired judges who were appointed - not elected - to their positions, and task them with drafting a code of conduct that uses "shalls" exclusively, and specifies that breach of these rules is CRIMINAL (because breach of the rules is a harmful affront to the institution, the rule of law, and every one of the American people). Give the public 60 days of input, rewrite the rules as needed, and then post it to the CFRs.
As for enforcement, create an Accountability agency in the Administration that ANYONE can file a complaint to - so people like the journalists that have dug up info on all the undisclosed gifts Thomas has received, as well as various judicial watchdog groups don't get excluded. Set up a rotating panel of lower court justices in the form of a grand jury to review complaints for whether there's probable cause to believe that SCOTUS ethics rules have been breached.
If the panel of judges concludes there's likely been a breach, it gets referred to the DOJ. Specialist lawyers at DOJ develop the evidence and present a case to a Special Select Committee in the House, who vote on whether or not to refer the case to the full House for a vote. And if the House votes that a breach has been committed, the offender is referred to the Senate for impeachment, and [potential removal.
It should be difficult to remove a sitting member of SCOTUS, but every Justice on the bench should have to ask themselves if selling out is worth the trouble this would cause them.
Or we could just expand the court to 15 over two consecutive Administrations (3, then 2) and give them all ten year term limits.
Not worth the paper on which it was written, nor the minimal effort it took to write it. Justices Thomas and Alito have no shame, and the rest have no guts. Some brave little boy needs to point out that the justices - all of them - are wearing no robes.
What bothers me most is the contempt the Supremes obviously have for us. How else to explain their apparent belief that we can be fooled by this nonsense?
You have got it! Even the title. Go for it, Girl, I say! The Lottery by Sheila Strand. There is a lot of historical examples of lotteries working. I think Ancient Greeks used it...but I know that many progressive writers have written about the fairness-the equity-the equal opportunity of lotteries. Michael Sandel -a Harvard Prof in The Tyranny of Merit says how lottery could be used well for Harvard applicants.
When this nonsense was released, I couldn’t make it past the second sentence: “For the most part these rules and principles are not new...”
Right there they admitted they’d had some “code of ethics” and just repeatedly ignored it. This is lipstick on a pig - nothing more.
I tend to agree. But we still must look at that pig, and look at that lipstick, and call it out.
Term limits-say 15 years. The selection process needs to be de-politicalized. Have a ready pool of extremely well qualified candidates and then select them by lottery. Being seated politically as they are now-they stay political- far from being blind justice. Justice is blind. As blind as you can get it. American Justices are inclined to have 20/20 vision.
The Big Picture ran a piece (a Q&A with Term Limit the Court) that gets into this question. They are proposing 18 years, but they have a good argument to make!
Works for me.
Nine justices are selected at random. Similar to the three judges appeal courts. Should one judge be unavailable then there are still nine to decide an issue.
A supreme court Inspector General to investigate questions of ethics.
Expand the court. You will never depoliticize the court until membership in right wingnut organizations like The Federalist Society becomes disqualifying, and fraudulent and invented premises like "money = speech" are no longer the law of the land.
And approval by the ABA is the pure litmus test?
Who selects the pool and how is it not political?
This is how we should select our presidents, too! Instead of 15 year terms, though, how about 6 and out? No 8 years of too much, and no 4 years of too little? What do you think??
I like it because it takes money out of it....it's how we should select applicants to elite schools...from a pool with a cut off average say of 75 % grade average. Selecting the pool for the presidency would be more challenging but it could be done....certainly the chances of a TRUMP being pooled out of a decent pooling would be lower. It would take charisma and marketing out of the presidential selection too.
I agree! I've long thought about writing a book called The Lottery, where any qualified voter is subject to becoming president. (A lottery is required because no sane American will step forward to run.) The result could be most entertaining! Got the idea from the movie/series Designated Survivor.
It sounds like the rules to "Calvinball."
Well played, Sir! You get to move forward 120 spaces and steal your opponent’s snacks.
Vielen Dank!
The fact that they included no enforcement and nobody to be responsible for investigations proves that the entire idea is a con. The members of the outlaw faction of SCOTUS really do believe they are functionally the Gods of America and can do whatever they want,
.
Soooo disappointed in the "liberal" justices who signed onto this bowl of pablum. I found the predicate language of a "misunderstanding" by the public (aka us silly voters) to be smug and arrogant in the extreme. This is nothing more than an ill-disguised and ill-conceived pacifier. It is designed to be toothless-friendly.
I hope that they continue to apply pressure from within to bring about true accountability and enforcement.
Thanks 👍👍
It's "widely seen" as a good thing because that's the way John Roberts wants it to look. But John Roberts is just as corrupt as Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. After all, all six of them committed perjury during their confirmation hearings when they expressed fidelity to the rule of law and stare decisis. That makes them felons.
And Roberts and his wife are the greatest scam artists of all through her headhunter operation for lawyers and firms for whom they magically find jobs at the Supreme Court and at white shoe law firms throughout the country thereafter, all the while taking a percentage from both employee and employer. None of it is reported or disclosed, nor are any of her clients ever revealed, even though we just know for certain that they regularly appear before Roberts while lining his pockets for doing so.
This so-called code is nothing more than Roberts's half-assed attempt to avoid a subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee for all justices, their benefactors, and their beneficiaries.
These "rules" are neither a strong brew nor weak tea. They're a transparent inert gas that does absolutely nothing.
Judicial flatulence?? 🤪
More like sewer gas, but yeah.
I'd compare it to a dust-and-cobweb filled cup, but that's just me.
A transparent inert gas will suffocate you - that's why Alabama has proposed to kill prisoners with it.
One hallmark of a profession (CPAs, attorneys, doctors, etc.) is its adherence to a Code of Ethics. As a retired academic (PhD Accounting and CPA) I taught the required ethics course in our masters of accounting program. CPAs, in most if not all states, have to pass a separate ethics exam after they pass the CPA exam. They are also bound by SEC laws and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (passed after multiple auditing failures of major corporations). The rules to determine if an auditor is "independent" are lengthly and complex, and for good reason. The Supreme Court's Code is "baby steps" (see What About Bob movie - classic Bill Murray and Richard Dreyfus). Congress can and should step up and add accountability for the Justices. And, while they're at it, they need to address stock trading by members of Congress.
The Constitution guarantees life tenure only if the judge has “good behavior,” therefore inviting Congress to flesh out what “good behavior” is, including by implication a mechanism for enforcing the standard. So Congress should do its job and pass a code with teeth.
The Constitution does not give Congress the right to "pass a code with teeth," it gives Congress the right to impeach.
Article 3 provides “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour. . .” It’s up to Congress to define “good behavior” which includes more than simply not doing something impeachable. Not showing up at the job or hearing an oral argument while drunk is not a high crime or misdemeanor, but would certainly be bad behavior.
There is no mechanism to remove federal judges besides impeachment; for an impeachable offense.
Actually, the FBI could start arresting them for perjury, which Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett committed when they professed fidelity to the rule of law and stare decisis at their confirmation hearings. They lied under oath.
Many of us wouldn't be aurprised if this corrupt administration tried such a stunt.
Thank you for the detailed description of this scam. As another noted, I’m deeply disappointed that the competent justices (the ones that haven’t been bought & paid for) signed on to this fraud.
If the majority wasn’t focused on pure partisan hackery supporting the GQP agenda, this would be the top news story on Fox noise and every right-wing outlet for weeks. Their silence is proof positive that this is a useless fraud and WILL NOT have any effect on the continued bribery of the majority members of the Robert’s Kangaroo court.
So sad that the other three lacked the spine to object.
So.... basically.... it's a Band Aid. To pretend like they've done SOMETHING. Yeah, let's bring on term limits. And the same rules for firing them as we all have at our workplaces: if you steal, if you lie, if you cheat on your taxes, if you engage in sexual harassment - you are GONE.
While we are pipe dreaming-a large enough pool would reduce the chances of a Federalist Society Judge. But America is not about to change its constitution. Sadly, it is tied too it like fundamentalists to the Quran or the bible. Meanwhile other Western nations like Canada have updated their constitution.
Evolution is essential.
You would have to make the case for change. You haven't.
This "code of conduct" is more an opportunity for misconduct as has occurred, is occurring and will occur. This code has no teeth. Pure window dressing for the Tribe of Nine who will continue to do as they damned well please. Six of the nine are rogue jurists, and they plan to keep it that way.
Congress writes laws. Congress isn't the right branch to come up with a code of conduct for SCOTUS. It's the Administration that makes rules.
The President needs to appoint a commission comprised of retired judges who were appointed - not elected - to their positions, and task them with drafting a code of conduct that uses "shalls" exclusively, and specifies that breach of these rules is CRIMINAL (because breach of the rules is a harmful affront to the institution, the rule of law, and every one of the American people). Give the public 60 days of input, rewrite the rules as needed, and then post it to the CFRs.
As for enforcement, create an Accountability agency in the Administration that ANYONE can file a complaint to - so people like the journalists that have dug up info on all the undisclosed gifts Thomas has received, as well as various judicial watchdog groups don't get excluded. Set up a rotating panel of lower court justices in the form of a grand jury to review complaints for whether there's probable cause to believe that SCOTUS ethics rules have been breached.
If the panel of judges concludes there's likely been a breach, it gets referred to the DOJ. Specialist lawyers at DOJ develop the evidence and present a case to a Special Select Committee in the House, who vote on whether or not to refer the case to the full House for a vote. And if the House votes that a breach has been committed, the offender is referred to the Senate for impeachment, and [potential removal.
It should be difficult to remove a sitting member of SCOTUS, but every Justice on the bench should have to ask themselves if selling out is worth the trouble this would cause them.
Or we could just expand the court to 15 over two consecutive Administrations (3, then 2) and give them all ten year term limits.
The Administration has no (zero) authority over the Court besides nominating indoviduals to the bench.
Not worth the paper on which it was written, nor the minimal effort it took to write it. Justices Thomas and Alito have no shame, and the rest have no guts. Some brave little boy needs to point out that the justices - all of them - are wearing no robes.
What bothers me most is the contempt the Supremes obviously have for us. How else to explain their apparent belief that we can be fooled by this nonsense?
You have got it! Even the title. Go for it, Girl, I say! The Lottery by Sheila Strand. There is a lot of historical examples of lotteries working. I think Ancient Greeks used it...but I know that many progressive writers have written about the fairness-the equity-the equal opportunity of lotteries. Michael Sandel -a Harvard Prof in The Tyranny of Merit says how lottery could be used well for Harvard applicants.