The Chief Justice wrote in 2011 that the justices didn't need a Code of Conduct. Roberts needs to address whether he still thinks that. Also: A busy week ahead at SCOTUS.
A fundamental principle of justice is that it's not enough that justice be impartial, it is essential that it must appear to be impartial." Does Roberts have a response to that?
I could, in theory, be completely impartial in a trial where, say, my brother is an interested party. I'm an honest, ethical guy and my sworn duty is to be impartial. How dare you accuse me of violating my oath? But that's not the standard. "I'm fair, don't worry about it" is not an answer, it's an insult, to the public and the Supreme Court.
Could someone please explain to me why, even if ---
"Judicial Conference’s Code of Conduct for federal judges does not apply, “by its express terms,” to the justices, “reflect[ing] a fundamental difference between the Supreme Court and the other federal courts"---
as Roberts opines, the laws in 5 USC 13101-13111 (fka 5a U.S. Code § 101-109 )** doesn't? , They apply to "judicial officers" --13103( f-) (11)-which are defined as inter alia "the Chief Justice of the United States, the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and the judges of the United States courts of appeals" --Sec 13101 (10)
And who shall administer this law? Why, The Judicial Conference (which Roberts says has no power over the supremes) :
"the Judicial Conference in the case of an officer or employee described in paragraphs (11) and (12) of section Sec 13103 (f)" Which, if you follow the crumbs back, includes the Chief Justice et al.
Is there case law out there that changes any of this? Have the supremes actually made a ruling that the law does not apply to them? Just them, not the lower federal courts? The separation of powers can be sliced and diced to include just some, not all, of the judicial branch. Some how my con law professor missed this one. Actually, the only supreme court case law I can find had to do with a provision about special counsel which is no longer part of the statute. Maybe someone with access to Lexis can find more.
Or is it that our highest court doesn't understand how to read a statute? THAT makes me feel warm and cozy, all right.
If the statute DOES apply to them, I have some interesting further questions about the words "knowingly and willfully" means where the justice refused to read the law and instead relied on his buddie's thoughts. And I wonder why, when the Judicial Counsel can delegate authority it has under the statute (13102 b) , the ethics committee just gets to forget about the parts of the law it doesn't like.
As to Thomas's latest issues I am getting sick and tired of everyone arguing about what the Judicial Code of Conduct says or if it applies. Has the whole country gone blind to the statutes, not just Thomas?
The statute BTW is really clear on what "hospitality" does and doesn't mean. Does a Justice or anyone else covered by (U.S. Code Title 5 PART IV CHAPTER 131 SUBCHAPTER I) have any duty at all to read the statute and ask basic things about the ownership of the property they are being entertained at? Why do they have to have it "clarified?" Pretty much anyone can figure it out.
There are some interesting rules about recusal in Section 13111 but I haven't looked into their ins and outs. But it kind of looks like some paperwork is needed in regards to it
**the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 used to be in 5a USC. That set of statutes was repealed in Dec 2022 and --for Title 1--replaced with the provisions of 5 USC 13101-13111. The order of the sections changed, but as far as I can tell not the relevant wording. The comments made by Roberts in 2011 were under the old numbering. Was he telling us porkies about how this doesn't apply to the supremes??? I will grant you that there are probably things in the judicial code of conduct that aren't actually set forth in statutes.
My question is, do the Supreme Court Justices think and believe they are above the law? That they can just wing it whenever they feel it gets too close to their personal relationships and financial dealings?
A fundamental principle of justice is that it's not enough that justice be impartial, it is essential that it must appear to be impartial." Does Roberts have a response to that?
I could, in theory, be completely impartial in a trial where, say, my brother is an interested party. I'm an honest, ethical guy and my sworn duty is to be impartial. How dare you accuse me of violating my oath? But that's not the standard. "I'm fair, don't worry about it" is not an answer, it's an insult, to the public and the Supreme Court.
Don’t count on Chief Justice Roberts doing anything. It is under his “leadership” that the current farcical situation has come to exist.
Could someone please explain to me why, even if ---
"Judicial Conference’s Code of Conduct for federal judges does not apply, “by its express terms,” to the justices, “reflect[ing] a fundamental difference between the Supreme Court and the other federal courts"---
as Roberts opines, the laws in 5 USC 13101-13111 (fka 5a U.S. Code § 101-109 )** doesn't? , They apply to "judicial officers" --13103( f-) (11)-which are defined as inter alia "the Chief Justice of the United States, the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and the judges of the United States courts of appeals" --Sec 13101 (10)
And who shall administer this law? Why, The Judicial Conference (which Roberts says has no power over the supremes) :
"the Judicial Conference in the case of an officer or employee described in paragraphs (11) and (12) of section Sec 13103 (f)" Which, if you follow the crumbs back, includes the Chief Justice et al.
Is there case law out there that changes any of this? Have the supremes actually made a ruling that the law does not apply to them? Just them, not the lower federal courts? The separation of powers can be sliced and diced to include just some, not all, of the judicial branch. Some how my con law professor missed this one. Actually, the only supreme court case law I can find had to do with a provision about special counsel which is no longer part of the statute. Maybe someone with access to Lexis can find more.
Or is it that our highest court doesn't understand how to read a statute? THAT makes me feel warm and cozy, all right.
If the statute DOES apply to them, I have some interesting further questions about the words "knowingly and willfully" means where the justice refused to read the law and instead relied on his buddie's thoughts. And I wonder why, when the Judicial Counsel can delegate authority it has under the statute (13102 b) , the ethics committee just gets to forget about the parts of the law it doesn't like.
As to Thomas's latest issues I am getting sick and tired of everyone arguing about what the Judicial Code of Conduct says or if it applies. Has the whole country gone blind to the statutes, not just Thomas?
The statute BTW is really clear on what "hospitality" does and doesn't mean. Does a Justice or anyone else covered by (U.S. Code Title 5 PART IV CHAPTER 131 SUBCHAPTER I) have any duty at all to read the statute and ask basic things about the ownership of the property they are being entertained at? Why do they have to have it "clarified?" Pretty much anyone can figure it out.
There are some interesting rules about recusal in Section 13111 but I haven't looked into their ins and outs. But it kind of looks like some paperwork is needed in regards to it
_________________________________________________________
**the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 used to be in 5a USC. That set of statutes was repealed in Dec 2022 and --for Title 1--replaced with the provisions of 5 USC 13101-13111. The order of the sections changed, but as far as I can tell not the relevant wording. The comments made by Roberts in 2011 were under the old numbering. Was he telling us porkies about how this doesn't apply to the supremes??? I will grant you that there are probably things in the judicial code of conduct that aren't actually set forth in statutes.
Justice Kavanaugh *must* be furious about the situation, since certainly there will be sunlight splash damage as a result of the entire matter
An ambiguous story, but very interesting.
My question is, do the Supreme Court Justices think and believe they are above the law? That they can just wing it whenever they feel it gets too close to their personal relationships and financial dealings?