All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight: 'Raises more questions,' Senate chair says

[aocommunalpunch]

There's no conservative-liberal divide on the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to calls for a new, enforceable ethics code.

All nine justices, in a rare step, on Tuesday released a joint statement reaffirming their voluntary adherence to a general code of conduct but rebutting proposals for independent oversight, mandatory compliance with ethics rules and greater transparency in cases of recusal.

The implication, though not expressly stated, is that the court unanimously rejects legislation proposed by Democrats seeking to impose on the justices the same ethics obligations applied to all other federal judges.

"The justices ... consult a wide variety of authorities to address specific ethical issues," the members of the high court said in a document titled "Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/9-supreme-court-justices-push-back-oversight-raises/story?id=98917921

[Irish_Dem]

1. Americans have learned the hard way the Honor Code is meaningless

when people have no honor.

Shame shame shame on the supreme court.

[RockRaven]

2. Well, they are NOT adhering to a general code of conduct voluntarily because multiple justices

have filed false disclosure forms just within the past few years. They aren't just being crooked, they are actively committing misdemeanors to hide their corruption. So their stated preference for that option is a fucking gas light job.

[onecaliberal]

3. Complete fucking joke. Shame on the non extremist for going along.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Keep pressure own these motherfuckers until they crack - and they will

They can't help themselves after living like royalty for decades.

[Carlitos Brigante]

5. And this right here is why I don't gush over politicians or anyone in the public sector. So many

of them do believe they're special and rules shouldn't apply to them. It should be the total opposite. The more power you're given by society. The stricter the ethics rules that you have to follow. It seems to me like that's a fair trade off.


The code of ethics that other judges have to follow, should be the bare minimum. And they can't even abide by that?

[NewHendoLib]

6. Big steaming plate of bullshit right there.

Fuck em all.

[walkingman]

7. Just another example of the direction our Democracy is going.

When you examine each of our 3 co-equal branches of government it is alarming how dysfunctional things have become.

[Timewas]

8. Pass a law

About that and they will call it "unconstitutional" .

[Polybius]

32. Yup, they will rule 9-0 that it's unconstitutional

There's nothing anyone can do.

[Timewas]

38. Congress

Has the authority to fix it but they won't do that, they like it like it is.

[Polybius]

39. The Supreme Court will rule that whatever they fix is unconstitutional

9-0.

[Timewas]

40. Actually

Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it.

Can Congress override a Supreme Court ruling?
Court can declare a law unconstitutional; allowing Congress to override Supreme Court decisions; imposing new judicial ethics rules for Justices; and expanding transparency through means such as allowing video recordings of Supreme Court proceedings.

https://rdm.law/jurisdiction-stripping-and-the-supreme-court/

[NYC Liberal]

46. Then strip them of their appellate jurisdiction.

The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to do so (and they have in specific cases; see Ex parte McCardle).

the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make

[BigmanPigman]

9. They will be the root of the SCOTUS losing all respect as

Last edited Fri Apr 28, 2023, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)

a part of our country's "balance of power". They are willfully contributing to the death of our democracy. And nothing can be done to stop them?!? Shame on you SCOTUS. History books will point to YOU, SCOTUS, and your legacy will be disgraced due to your corruption. Oh wait, history books will be banned, I almost forgot that little tidbit.

But what the fuck do they care about democracy and the constitution and what the MAJORITY of Americans want. They will live the rest of their days in usurped wealth and power and they are GLAD and they are GLAD to continue doing so until they drop dead. This is what happens when you have zero morals, self respect or patriotism. They are getting away with murder and are flaunting it in our faces every fucking day.

Between the SCOTUS and the Electoral College, the majority will never rule. This is how and why our democracy will die. It directly goes to these two ancient "rules" by founding fathers that no longer apply in our current times. Add with that the guns rights/2nd amendment and pro-choice issues and the end of our democracy will be here faster than most realize. Hello, Fascism..woo hoo!

[Celerity]

19. and the US Senate

Between the SCOTUS and the Electoral College, the majority will never rule.

We are headed towards only 30% of the population controlling 70% of the US Senate seats.

That 30% is far whiter, older, more reactionary, more rural, less educated, more racist, more fundie christian, more mysoginistic, more homophobic, more gun-humper, etc etc than the 70% of the American popilation who will only be left with only 30% of the Senate seats.

The Senate is a ticking constitutional time bomb by its very nature, just like the Electoral College and the unaccountable (in reality) SCOTUS.

[BigmanPigman]

21. Yes, indeed!!!

They are 3rd on the list of "minority rule".

[Celerity]

24. The US founding fathers set up a system that has 'good faith' at its bedrock core. Most never

foresaw a congealed giant faction of such size that it can systemically alter the entire ecosystem of governance and checks and balances, a faction united behind the concept of the destruction of good faith, and the 'power above all else' injection of bad faith as a primary modus operandi.

The US is a supertanker, so so so hard to turn in a completely different direction, in good part due to the system of checks and balances. BUT, when one side engages in bad faith (and often illegal, IMHO) machinations and turns that supertanker of state far enough in a destructive direction, those same checks and balances and reliance and appeals to good faith (all still adhered to by the opposing side, aka the Dems) may damn well stop the course of destruction from being turned away from.

[BigmanPigman]

25. That is an excellent analogy.

[Celerity]

31. Normalcy bias and undue faith in the concepts of 'it can never happen here' and American

exceptionalism may well play a massive part in the dissolution of the union of the States and/or a tyrannical, fascist usurpation and then a liberty-destroying revision of the American constitutional form of governance.

[BigmanPigman]

35. The thing is that it IS HAPPENING right now!

Every single day I am more and more grateful that I chose not to have kids. I would feel so guilty if I did. Time is up and we ARE at an extremely critical point in our history. I wish I had a crystal ball and could see the US in 5, 10, 25 years. On the other hand, if I did I would probably jump off a bridge by next week.

[FakeNoose]

10. In a nutshell, John Roberts is corrupt and that's why he won't police the other 8

Oversight must come from outside the judiciary. That is all.

[Zeitghost]

47. He has no authority to police them

And really has no authority to do much of anything except assign decisions if he's in the majority. It's a largely ceremonial title with little authority to control the court.

[Freethinker65]

11. So they want to continue to keep side hustles that often are more lucrative than their day jobs?

Perhaps increase their pay so they will be less tempted to take easy money from those with potential cases before the court.

Nah, they will still take the easy money and no one will stop them.

[gratuitous]

12. When Scalia ruled Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional

Scalia cited unanimous or near-unanimous renewal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act* by Congress over the years as suspicious and part of the leverage he used to invalidate the provision. I wonder if we can use Scalia Logic to similarly repudiate the Nine Wise Souls and their pinky-swear not to do corruption in the future, and launch some actual investigation into that corruption?

*That the part that said states with a history of voter suppression had to submit proposed changes to their voting laws to the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice for pre-clearance. If the Division said no, the changes couldn't be introduced at the legislature.

[Ligyron]

16. As soon as he declared it unconstitutional the red states went to town.

Started enacting all kinds of voter suppression laws left and right that would have been unthinkable the day before.

They haven’t slowed down a bit in their efforts either.

[Marius25]

13. Really disgusted with the 3 liberals

Didn't take long for Kentaji Brown Jackson to join the "family" and reject oversight.

[diva77]

23. I wonder whether the liberal justices were strongarmed into their position

[republianmushroom]

14. I disagree with all 9 Justices, you do need oversight.

[dickthegrouch]

17. Was the letter written by ChatGPT?

It doesn’t show the onion as a source. I can’t imagine why the liberal judges would have signed on to this.

Oversight is required. Or as another famous republican said “Trust and verify”. They can’t argue with that, can they?

[ShazzieB]

43. IF the liberal judges du sign on....

I am deeply disappointed in them.

[doc03]

18. It is very troubling that all 9 of them are against any kind of

ethics rules. Are they all on the take?

[Celerity]

20. The hubris that is spawned from damn near (atm) unaccountable power is a hell of a drug.

[Polybius]

36. I understand why though

I would be against it too if I were a SC Justice.

[Wounded Bear]

22. Maybe if "all nine justices" policed their own house better it wouldn't be a question...nt

[Cha]

28. Absolutely.. Ponder that, SCOTUS.

We See you.

[Cha]

26. Wow I'm surprised.. ..

Last edited Fri Apr 28, 2023, 09:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Why wouldn't they want an Ethics Code?

Sorry Lib Judges.. I'm surprised at you.

I edited this..

[ZonkerHarris]

27. Fuck em all. Lets start over

[Cha]

29. Yeah, that's not gonna happen

anytime soon.. with lifetime jobs which was a Stupid idea to begin with.

[ShazzieB]

44. I have to assume you're joking..

We don't get to "start over." The Constitution literally does not provide any way to do this. Violating the Constitution is not an option.

[Marthe48]

30. Catch 22 lives

Wanting oversight for an arm of the government that didn't need it before this gang got seated is something that if enacted will go before this gang, and be judged unconstitutional by the very people who need it most.

I am disappointed that all 9 justices agreed to continue their exalted and untouchable seats on the bench. Guess I'll carry a lamp in daylight, looking for an honorable (formerly) supreme court judge.

[Mr.Bill]

33. Chuck Schumer should form a committee

to do a very public investigation of all of them. Shine the light on them.

[Hotler]

34. Justices, please furnish a complete list of authorities you consult on ethical issues.

And a list of who vetted these authorities. If not, no fucking whining when the people call you guys chicken shit.

[Tree Lady]

37. As we knew when they stole the court

thats where the true power is for life, and all the new ones are young very young.

[Earth-shine]

41. The liberal justices might identify more with their colleagues than us.

I have yet to hear one good reason why SCOTUS should not be subjected to the same level of oversight as other federal judges.

[UTUSN]

42. "all" - really?! Ours, too?

[GuppyGal]

45. No oversight ....installed for life, sure what could go wrong.....this is some bullshit right here.