Justice Amy Coney Barrett says ethics rules for the Supreme Court would be a 'good idea'
Justice Amy Coney Barrett says ethics rules for the Supreme Court would be a 'good idea'
The conservative justice indicated support for a code of conduct similar to the one that applies to lower federal court judges.
The conservative justice indicated support for a code of conduct similar to the one that applies to lower federal court judges.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett indicated Monday she would support a code of conduct for the Supreme Court in the wake of recent claims that some justices have fallen short of required ethical standards.
Speaking at the University of Minnesota Law School, Barrett said it would be "a good idea for us do it" and suggested that the justices are broadly in support of a set of principles similar to those that lower court judges are required to follow.
"There is no lack of consensus among the justices. There's unanimity among all nine justices that we should and do hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards possible," she added.
You're viewing a single thread.
The only way to save the court is to dissolve it, arrest Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito and Thomas today, have an independent investigator rip into the other 5 and arrest them if they so much as accepted a free drink from anyone with business before the court and use the powers extant in the constitution for congress to pass a code of ethics that is publicly known and that all justices are legally bound to uphold on pain of disbarment and prison.
arrest them
I don't know how to tell you this, but it seems like based on what is known publicly they have committed no crimes. Have they committed things that should be crimes? Oh, for sure.
Also, we might as well wish for personal unicorns for all citizens than an actual constitutional amendment. Anything less is subject to judicial review (a made up power the supreme court gave itself?) so even if a law got passed, it would be subject to the people it's supposed to regulate allowing it.
they have committed no crimes
That's what a trial is for
You need crimes to have a trial? Theoretically cops are supposed to have reasonable, articulable suspicion of specific crime before even detaining someone. You might be looking for something like congressional review, but most of the things that have been reported on Thomas for example, aren't chargeable under current law. If our politics wasn't so incredibly fucked right now, theoretically they would impeach, but that's just about the only mechanism for dealing with justices. Even then, that's edit:
continentcontingent mostly on logical inference of this line in the constitution:The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour
which assumes that "bad behavior" means they can be removed, which translates in modern society as "if there is political will crime is legal." See also: Donald Trump, who very obviously should have been removed several times over, is basically exactly what the framers had in mind when designing mechanisms around impeachment/removal/emoluments, etc. for bad actors, but republicans just didn't feel like it? And much like Trump, even if congress did investigate and find say, normie crimes like embezzlement or insider trading or something, we face the possibility that you end up with a Justice in prison still ruling in much the same way the Republican front-runner for president is very obviously a raping, treasonous, insurrectionist. Like, that's why those bad-actor clauses are there, but again, that requires a congress that can function (lol Republicans can't even get a house speaker) and actually have the will to do so. As it is, I'm guessing half of the country is probably just like they were with Trump evading taxes and thinks that Thomas taking advantage means he's "smart" and he's actively advancing a bunch of the fucked up shit they want, just like the rest of the corrupt, illegitimate court.