Notably, they did not adopt the same code of ethics that all other federal judges are held to.
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
30 points (100.0% liked)
U.S. News
2245 readers
22 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
From the opening page
The Court has long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules, that is, a body of rules derived from a variety of sources, including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary, ethics advisory opinions issued by the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct, and historic practice. The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.
So...
- Why, if you think the code that applies to all other federal judges is good, did you not simply adopt it?
- So the problem is that people think the justices consider them not bound by ethics rules because they don't have a formal code, not the behaviors of certain justices that have come to light in recent years, got it.
To me, it feels like this is just written confirmation that they functionally have no code of ethics. They've been dodging the question for months, so I guess this is progress?
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.
I think you and I agree, we just phrased the same idea in two different ways
Seems like they are just making something up to see if people stop paying attention. It will not change a thing.
Relax everybody! They solved the ethics problem on their own!! Phew, democracy saved.
There's no enforcement, it's just trust based. Literally taking bribes from billionaires for rulings, and they're off scott free
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
WASHINGTON, Nov 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday adopted its first formal code of conduct governing the ethical behavior of its nine justices, bowing to months of outside pressure over revelations of undisclosed luxury trips and hobnobbing with wealthy benefactors.
That absence, the statement said, "has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the justices of this court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.
The court has been buffeted for months by revelations regarding justices over undisclosed trips on private jets, luxury vacations, real estate and recreational vehicle deals, and more.
The news outlet ProPublica has detailed luxury trips taken for years by Thomas provided by Texas businessman Harlan Crow as well as real estate transactions involving the justice and the billionaire Republican donor.
ProPublica also reported that the conservative Koch network of political donors, which has had multiple cases before the court, has brought Thomas in recent years to its summit meetings.
A report by Senate Democrats in October also found that Thomas apparently failed to repay at least a "significant portion" of a $267,230 loan he received from longtime friend Anthony Welters to buy a luxury motor coach.
Saved 59% of original text.
The nine-page code contains sections codifying that justices should not let outside relationships influence their official conduct or judgment,
Even if there were enforcement, this is a comically weak restriction. It looks like all it's asking is to behave as though you don't have a conflict of interests when you do have a conflict of interests.