More evidence for the need of an ethics board to govern the SC.

Your prejudice and partisan malice are showing.

 

Meaning you would have no problem if parties with cases before the SC routinely contacted justices with offers of trips, renting houses to their folks for free, or trips to exclusive resorts on private jets. Wait........they already have.

 

Sorry, but your claim is fiction.

 

If pointing out the error of Alito's assertion makes me partisan I'm all too happy to wear the mantle.

 

See post #318.

 

Alito is unassailably in the right in this dispute. Only those with a partisan grievance would claim otherwise.

 

That was merely my earlier dismissal of your fictitious claim.

 

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities
https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

Game, set, match.

 

Like Sam's, your tendentious judgement is impaired.

 

It might be worth mentioning Alito's rebuttal, published compliments of Rupert Murdoch, came 5 hours before ProPublica published their original piece.

 

At the very least I'm sure you agree we need clarity on what is and isn't a violation of reporting requirements. Decisions in such matters should not be left to individual judge's descretion.

 

Student Borrower Protection Center
@theSBPC

[BREAKING] Building on
@propublica
's bombshell exposing Justice Alito's ties to billionaire investor Paul Singer, we dug into Singer's support for litigants in the SCOTUS student debt relief cases. This is #corruption. Alito must immediately recuse. https://protectborrowers.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/FINAL-SBPC-Recusal-Demand-to-Justice-Alito.pdf…








11:32 AM · Jun 21, 2023
·
393.5K
Views

 

IIRC: It came after Pro-Publica contacted Alito about upcoming article?
Whatever it's called when you give the person an opportunity to comment on what will be said about them.

 

Did you read his arguments? They’re embarrassing Would you accept that nonsense from a child?

 

We'll see where this goes.

'Durbin announces vote on Supreme Court ethics bill'

'Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin is done waiting patiently for the Supreme Court to change its ethics standards.

The Illinois Democrat announced Wednesday that his panel will vote on ethics legislation for the high court in July, after he and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) have spent months probing the matter. Durbin's statement was prompted by a ProPublica report that Justice Samuel Alito took an expensive fishing trip with prominent GOP donor Paul Singer, a story that followed another ProPublica investigation into Justice Clarence Thomas accepting luxury trips from billionaire Harlan Crow. Alito took part in a court decision that involved Singer's business.

Durbin said the Supreme Court is in the middle of an “ethical crisis of its own making,” and added that Congress will act if Chief Justice John Roberts does not address the issue on his own. The chief justice has responded to Durbin's queries with a "Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices," which was signed by all nine justices.

“The highest court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards. But for too long that has been the case with the United States Supreme Court. That needs to change. That’s why when the Senate returns after the July 4th recess, the Senate Judiciary Committee will mark up Supreme Court ethics legislation,” Durbin and Whitehouse said in a statement.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...&cvid=2bc2ef528159414986319e7f6f62e55b&ei=369

 

• A recent ProPublica report details how Alito took an expensive trip with a billionaire before reviewing cases involving him.
• 
  
• ProPublica asked Alito for comment on the story, but the court's spokeswoman said he wouldn't comment.
• Hours later, Alito published his response to the Wall Street Journal.

 

Ron Filipkowski
@RonFilipkowski

I was wondering why Cotton was out there first defending Alito before the new story of his corruption even came out.
Quote Tweet

Roger Sollenberger
@SollenbergerRC
·
15h
The billionaire hedge fund manager who paid for Alito’s trip & later had business before the Supreme Court has given nearly $20,000 to Tom Cotton’s campaign and leadership PAC, starting in 2013. His family members have also made several max donations to Cotton.




6:49 AM · Jun 21, 2023
·

 

Certain to be found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

 

I thought his arguments were decisive.

 

There is no entity with authority to make rules for the SCOTUS other than the SCOTUS themselves. And even then, the SCOTUS could amend said rules at will.

 

So what?

 

Cotton is gathering his top money donors now and will decided on 2024 after the mid-term election.
Has Tommy evolved on "gay rights"?
The GOP surely has not.

This is from 2014

'The Wall Street Money Men Behind a Right-Wing Star'

'While the securities industry is the largest sector to donate to Cotton’s campaign, the largest single source of those donations has been Elliott Management Corp., the hedge fund run by Paul Singer, a neocon defense hawk who has pushed his party to evolve on gay rights.'


https://archive.is/H81EG#selection-729.0-729.270

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-wall-street-money-men-behind-a-right-wing-star

 

So these two SCOTUS ethics bills are written knowing that if ever passed by House and Senate the same SCOTUS can find them unconstitutional?
Wha? lol

snip:

'Luttig and legal expert Laurence Tribe said in statements to the committee that while they believe Congress has the authority to impose a code of ethics on the court, they took issue with bills—such as King and Murkowski’s—that force the Supreme Court to come up with its own code of ethics, believing that could raise legal issues with the separation of powers. That raises the possibility that the bipartisan bill could face legal challenges if it passes.

CHIEF CRITIC
The Supreme Court’s justices have defended their lack of a binding ethics code by maintaining they voluntarily follow the one for lower federal judges. In his statement declining the Senate Judiciary Committee’s call to testify, Roberts attached a “Statement of Ethics and Principles” signed by the nine justices, which said they voluntarily subscribe to ethical principles, like disclosing conflicts of interest.'

LOL^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

cont:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alisond...ears-case-for-code-of-ethics/?sh=3f2ede013e43

 

What do you think of this?

'While many senators have previously questioned the constitutionality of Congress passing legislation requiring the Supreme Court to implement ethics standards, Professor John Sample of the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University testified that Congress has the authority to enact legislation that would help the Supreme Court operate more effectively, and has so since 1789, when it passed the Judiciary Act.

It is critical for the public’s trust in our democratic institutions that the Supreme Court is held to at least the same ethical standards as the other branches of government and lower courts, and that justices are held accountable when they violate those standards. For this reason, it is important that the Senate continues to consider how to best establish effective ethics practices, including practices that ensure impartiality.'

https://campaignlegal.org/update/supreme-court-must-be-held-higher-ethics-standards

 

"The Constitution is what the judges say it is." --Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

It is called the Supreme Court because there is no authority above it.