Senate Democrats Announce Vote To Advance Supreme Court Ethics Bill

Compassionate non-theocrats

 

Why can’t they be held to the same standard as every other judge in America? I mean the great cry from America is “NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW”. Except of course ex-presidents whose name happens to be Trump and Supreme Court judges (of the republican variety of course)

 

Maybe, maybe not. This country hasn’t been big on having more than two major political parties at a time. Sure there has been, but mostly no.

 

This time of year, it'd be a shame not to swing over to Texas, as well. And don't forget, somewhere along the way, to stop by Tennessee-- but make sure you don't have any gender neutral clothing, with you.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/rcna26354

Title: Welcome to the Cultural Authoritarianism Era

<Snip>
The measures drafted in Missouri, Idaho and Texas are expansive in their attempts to control the residents of their states, and they are hardly exceptions. A flurry of bills that show a breathtaking disregard for individual rights on topics from abortion to race are flying through legislatures in these and many other red states.

The trend in these red states represents a high-water mark of illiberalism in 21st century America. To call this phenomenon merely a new manifestation of the long-ranging culture wars, as so many are, is a mistake.

To criminalize seeking out-of-state services is a clear affront to the ability of people in this country to enjoy freedom of movement. To expand the constraints on adults to make their own health care decisions and to allow neighbors to act as bounty hunters on transgressors, as Texas law does when it comes to abortion, frays the relationship people have with their bodies and their neighbors. To threaten parents with abuse investigations for medical treatment doctors endorse is to fundamentally warp the nature of how the state relates to the American household.
<End Snip>




Supplemental link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...355dbc-e8de-11ed-869e-986dd5713bc8_story.html

 

A ranked system basically assures more than one party PLUS it cheaper - which is the main reason Australia uses it LOLS!

 

I just wanted to quote your link, for everyone in the thread (though this method was attempted 2 years ago, it seems reasonable to expect the same thing now, unless there was found to be some problem with that method).

<Snip>
Summary: S.2512 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
All Information (Except Text)

There is one summary for S.2512. Bill summaries are authored by CRS.
Shown Here:
Introduced in Senate (07/28/2021)
Supreme Court Ethics Act

This bill establishes a new statutory requirement for the Judicial Conference of the United States to issue a judicial code of conduct for judges and justices of U.S. courts, including Justices of the Supreme Court.

Currently, the Judicial Conference issues a code of conduct for judges of U.S. courts (but not for Justices of the Supreme Court).

 

good stuff...they got some rulings they don't like (because they LOVE segregationist policies) and now they want to change the rules because those same rules didn't currently work out for them. I would love to see these losers try. Its gonna blow up in their faces just like their lame racist asian-hate/jealousy college policies. SICK! can't wait to watch this glass house shatter to pieces.

 

Yes. He is the Chief Justice.

They don't have the power to imposed ethics rules on a Co-Equal branch of government. What do you think "Co Equal" means?

Fake news. He specifically references the Constitutional Text that differentiates the Supreme Court from the "Inferior Courts".

If they want to describe the future criteria that Congress would use to measure whether to impeach Judges, why sure, they are free to operate under the rules that each Chamber creates, that power is clearly specified in the Constitution.

That would not be laws for the Court, those would be rules for the Chamber, and subject to change by each successive Congress.

Congress does have the power to impose ethics rules on members of their Chamber, and they should.

https://www.cnbc.com › 2020 › 10 › 22 › insider-trading-and-congress-how-lawmakers-get-rich-from-stock-market.html
Insider trading and Congress: How lawmakers get rich from stock ... - CNBC

'Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., stepped down as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee amid the allegations. Until the 2008 financial crisis, lawmakers were under few restrictions, and the ...'

 

From the office of "Be careful what you wish for."

Sotomayor's staff has often prodded public institutions that have hosted the justice to buy her memoir or children's books, works that have earned her at least $3.7 million since she joined the court in 2009. Details of those events, largely out of public view, were obtained by The Associated Press through more than 100 open records requests to public institutions. The resulting tens of thousands of pages of documents offer a rare look at Sotomayor and her fellow justices beyond their official duties.

In her case, the documents reveal repeated examples of taxpayer-funded court staff performing tasks for the justice's book ventures, which workers in other branches of government are barred from doing. But when it comes to promoting her literary career, Sotomayor is free to do what other government officials cannot because the Supreme Court does not have a formal code of conduct, leaving the nine justices to largely write and enforce their own rules.

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/11/1187...upreme-court-staff-book-sales-signings-memoir

https://www.kulr8.com/news/national...deo_5f70f05a-3abb-5afd-b0d9-1a7bbfb12912.html

 

You, my friend, are very lost. This proposal has nothing to do with any rulings-- it is about all the ethics violations that have recently come to light. Though, there are members of the Senate, like Dick Durbin, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, who have been pushing for years, to get the SCOTUS to adopt a code of ethics. This bill is the result of multiple, flagrant violations coming to light, plus a recognition by Democratic Senators that, no matter how egregiously unethical the behavior, Justice Roberts is not going to change his opposition to this.

I don't know how you think proposing this could possibly shatter in Democrats' faces. First off, an overwhelming 2/3 majority of Americans, favor an ethics code for the Supreme Court. I already posted this, near the bottom of page 2:

< Google Snip>
Key findings: A majority of voters don't have trust or confidence in the Supreme Court.
67% of voters believe a code of ethics and a method for investigating violations would restore trust in the institution.May 1, 2023
https://endcitizensunited.org › new-...
New Poll: Voters Overwhelmingly Support Ethics Reforms for the Supreme Court
<End Snip>

But, since Republicans control the House (and the slight Dem Senate majority, is subject to filibuster), there is no way this will become law. It will be a way to raise the profile of this issue, however, and for Americans to see where their own elected officials stand, on the idea of members of government's powerful Supreme Court, being required to adhere to a code of ethics (FYI-- being against this, is not a good look, for the GOP).

 

You have got to express yourself better. I just wrote an entire reply, based on the idea of your post's second statement, utterly contradicting the first, because I'd read you to be asserting (since you do not specifically say) that Congress can pass laws, governing the way a person dresses, since the Constitution does not specifically bar this. Though that seems to be the suggestion of that sentence, it would be the opposite of your first statement; so I'm now thinking that your intention had been to depict the part about the clothing to be something that the Congress cannot do, even if the Constitution doesn't bar it.

First of all, the Constitution probably would cover this, under one of the principles it protects, for citizens and residents of the country (perhaps under the freedom of speech-- at least for clothing with writing on it). Secondly: dude, it's just a few words, to turn your completely ambiguous line, into a completely clear one: "nothing in the Constitution says Congress cannot pass laws dictating what you wear, for example," yet still they can't. Or, "so they can." I mean, finish the thought, for God's sake. If that's really too many words for you to be troubled to type, then take out the superfluous "for example," instead of the vital "yet still they can't."

Again, your reply is a fail, not just for being so unclear in its meaning, but because I'd challenged you to cite some law that "Congress cannot pass, though not for any reason that could be cited from the Constitution." So, using your example, and assuming that your point had been that Congress could not pass such a law-- if it did pass this law, and it was challenged in court, what would be cited as the reason that it was "unconstitutional?" That term, by the way, should serve as a clue to you: unless there is something that could be cited from the Constitution, which prohibits some law, it cannot be unconstitutional.

Do you care to try again, or will you have the class to admit that I had been correct, and so that you had been wrong to razz me, about my "complete misunderstanding of government of limited powers?"

 

Congress can pass the rules as guidelines. Saying, “this is what we expect of you. And if you don’t follow these guidelines you can expect an impeachment inquiry”.

 

Yeah, no foolin'-- did you not see that I offered a link to that related story, at the bottom of the OP?

A quick snip, from that article:
<snip>
To be sure, as judicial scandals go, “prodding” from a justice’s staff isn’t nearly as dramatic as Thomas’ expansive ethics controversies. These are qualitatively different kinds of stories
<End Snip>

But this is precisely the benefit, of having concrete rules, as opposed to leaving it to each Justice's personal discretion-- so there will be no confusion, no honest mistakes, or just poor judgement. What was cited in this story, however, seems much closer "on the line," than either the Thomas or Alito stories: pointing out to schools that are hosting a speaking engagement with Justice Sotomayor, for their students, that it would seem not unreasonable for those schools to want to offer some of the Justice's writings, for any interested students. And no one is saying that her speaking was ever contingent upon the school purchasing any of her books. Nonetheless, it does not look good, so she probably should stop her staff from doing this (I wanted to make sure you didn't miss that line).

Another possibility, might be that she could recuse herself, from any cases which affected colleges. It should also be noted there is no suggestion that, unlike with Justice Thomas or Alito, Sotomayor had been trying to hide this. But if the ethics rules bar a Justice's staff from "promoting her literary career," then so be it-- I don't think you will hear liberals complaining about that, the way that self-proclaimed conservatives, try to defend Thomas taking millions of dollars worth of free vacations (which he stopped reporting in 2004), from powerful people, who have a dog in various Supreme Court cases, from which Thomas has never recused himself.

At the same time, there is yet another Thomas story, not as bad, perhaps, as the others, but at least as bad as the Sotomayor story. My point only being the same as the line I'd quoted from the opinion piece, I had linked: we should not look at this as an equivalency, with Justice Thomas's hijinks.

 

Get back to me when Congress imposes actual ethics rules on itself.

 

Well, I'm glad that you're finally starting to see through Roberts' pretentious, self-serving, snow job.

On a related note, please stop taking my quotes out of context. This latest post of yours, was just ridiculous. Below is the beginning of my reply: the parts in red, are what you quoted; the bolded parts, what you had cut out of my quote:

So what you are doing, is leaving out my actual arguments. I fail to see any point in answering my post this way, as nothing else more clearly says that you are beaten, and have no legitimate argument whatsoever, than to pretend to reply to someone's argument, while avoiding all of his points. This is, ironically enough, an unethical way to carry on a debate-- and really pathetic, besides.

If my arguments leave you at such a loss for responses, please look for someone's post, you might manage, at least, to face.

 

Fake News. I stated that he made a constitutional argument and you are mis-stating my reply to you.

 

That is called "illustrating a point." Look at my next sentence, beyond what you'd quoted, to "on a related note, please stop taking my quotes out of context." So I was doing the same sort of thing, with your own post-- though in an obvious sort of way. Please read the rest of my post, showing how your replies lacked the integrity to face any of my actual arguments. You had used two separate quotes from me, without even getting to the end of a single sentence, which was where lay the point of that sentence. You can do better. If you don't think you can, stop misrepresenting my posts, with your nonsense.

 

That's your burden to carry, deal with it.

 

The thing is, the segment of the amendment that you listed does not detail this and no other amendment does either, and I summarize this is purposeful. People forget how powerful the 10th Amendment is, and is meant to be by design: Any rights not granted to the government, is extended to the states or to the people. This *includes Congress* as well.

The framers knew they didn't have the solution to every problem, they never implied otherwise. The amendment system as well as the liberal nature of the 10th Amendment, was their way of giving future generations the tools to solve future problems.

It's not their fault we decided to lock ourselves away from using our amendment processes.

 

I hadn't included this lower half of your post, which goes into a different argument from that of the top half, in my first reply. But now, having read it, I want to address your idea, that this was a sudden move, on the part of Democrats. You do not seem to be aware first, that this is often not how government works, that legislators often have to work tirelessly, and patiently, to get anything to happen, from their efforts. Such was the case, here. Had you been paying any attention to Justice confirmation hearings, I do not see how you could possibly not be aware of all the research Senator Whitehouse, chair of the Judiciary Committee's Sub-committee on Federal Courts, Oversight, etc. has put into the Republican Justice pipeline; he pulls out flow charts, during his questioning of prospective Justices, like of Amy Coney Barrett.

The chair of the Judiciary Committee, Dick Durbin, has also long been an advocate of ethics reform, to include the Supreme Court. Yet not only does it take time to win over ones peers, but one is roadblocked, whenever one's Party is in the minority. So what we are really seeing is YOU, making erroneous assumptions, from the dark of your apparent disinterest in the topic, until news coverage of Democratic efforts, comes to your attention. That you would think you could shame others, is really incredible.

https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsr...ics-legislation-in-senate-judiciary-committee

<Snip>

Durbin and Whitehouse have been calling on the Supreme Court to adopt an enforceable code of conduct for more than a decade. They first sent a letter to the Chief Justice on this issue 11 years ago.

In addition, Whitehouse has engaged in a longstanding oversight effort to ensure transparency and accountability in the federal judiciary, which recently led the Judicial Conference to clarify the very financial disclosure rule Justice Thomas is now accused of abusing. Whitehouse has also introduced the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, a comprehensive, bicameral bill that would impose more rigorous ethical standards at the Supreme Court and establish a meaningful enforcement process.

Congress has an appropriate and well-established role in oversight of the judiciary and updating ethics laws that apply to federal officials, including justices and judges. Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act, which the justices are subject to, and created through statute the Judicial Conference, which administers that law.
<End Snip>


I will give you this much, though: the Justice who was always flouting the rules, for decades, was the Conservative Justice, Antonin Scalia; Thomas, in the last couple of decades, has followed Scalia's lead.

 

I would like to offer some more snips, to give all a fuller understanding. This first is from the main link, in the OP (NBC News).

<Snip>
“Whether you agree or disagree with the most recent historic decisions by the Supreme Court, we hope we can all agree on one thing — these nine justices have extraordinary powers under our Constitution,” Whitehouse and Durbin said. “The belief that they should not be held accountable or even disclose lavish gifts from wealthy benefactors is an affront to the nation they were chosen to serve. To hold these nine Justices to the same standard as every other federal judge is not a radical or partisan notion.”

"Since the Court won’t act, Congress will," they said.
<End Snip>

It seems that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's plan, to give the Justices not a set of ethics rules, but a deadline to come up with their own, won out; but I know that several others had plans, so perhaps parts of those were incorporated, as well. The planned Democratic package will, however, include rules for disclosure of gifts, and for recusal.

<Snip>
The bill would give the court 180 days to adopt and publish a code of conduct, allowing the public to submit ethics complaints that a randomly selected panel of lower court judges would review. It would establish new rules for disclosure of gifts and travel. And it would impose recusal rules pertaining to gifts, income and other potential conflicts.

The legislation is subject to a filibuster on the Senate floor, requiring 60 votes to advance. It is unclear whether Democrats, who control 51 votes, will win any Republican support for it. GOP senators have largely dismissed recent ethics questions aimed at the justices and said they trust the court to write its own internal rules.
<End Snip>

 

This is from the Senate Judiciary committee's website, from May, about Harlan Crow's refusal to cooperate with the Committee.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pr...ding-gifts-and-travel-given-to-justice-thomas


<Snip>
“The latest correspondence from Harlan Crow’s lawyer is a clear, unwarranted refusal to cooperate with legitimate requests for information from this Committee. Harlan Crow is a Texas billionaire who has lavished hundreds of thousands of dollars in undisclosed gifts on Justice Thomas and his family. When asked to produce information about these gifts to inform Congress’s efforts to increase transparency and accountability at the Supreme Court, Crow puts forward a dangerous, undemocratic argument: that an individual can withhold information from Congress based on what he believes is in the best interest of the Supreme Court.

“Let’s be clear: Harlan Crow doesn’t call the shots here. He is not a branch – nor even a member – of government and cannot claim the protections and privileges of one. The Senate Judiciary Committee has clearly established oversight and legislative authority to assess and address the ethical crisis facing the Court. All options are on the table moving forward.

“One would think that Chief Justice Roberts and the other Justices would want to make a clean break from this sordid episode. They could do so today, but they haven’t. If the Court won’t act, Congress must. The highest court in the land shouldn’t have the lowest ethical standards.”
<End>

 

I also take issue the way they were placed through a blatant power grab.

 

Three separate branches of government. Congress has enough problems with their own ethics on both sides of the aisle. Kind of like throwing stones in a glass house.

 

just too funny