U.S. News

2245 readers

29 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.

Guidelines for submissions:

Post the original source of information as the link.
If there is any Nazi imagery in the linked story, mark your post NSFW.
If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
Social media is not a news source.

For World News, see the News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

Powderhorn@beehaw.org

US Supreme Court announces formal ethics code for justices (www.reuters.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by memfree@beehaw.org to c/usnews@beehaw.org

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The code contains sections codifying that justices should not allow outside relationships to influence their official conduct or judgment, placing restrictions on justices participating in fundraising and reiterating limits on the accepting of gifts. It also states that justices should not "to any substantial degree" use their judicial resources or staff to engage in non-official activities.

Note that it sounds like this has NOT been officially adopted yet and so far there is no obvious means of enforcement.

Edit: Politco has posted the PDF of the "CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Omegamanthethird@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, aren't they just saying they have to promise bribes aren't impacting their decisions while confirming they can definitely use official resources for unofficial reasons?

Seems like it's just codifying the wrong things.

[–] theangriestbird@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

I think you and I agree, we just phrased the same idea in two different ways