Supreme Court upholds ethics law on legislative vote

[alp227]

Source: The Washington Post

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected arguments that a public official’s vote is free speech protected by the First Amendment and upheld Nevada’s conflict-of-interest law requiring recusals.

A unanimous court said laws requiring legislators to recuse themselves from voting on issues in which they have an interest “have been commonplace for over 200 years.”

The court rejected a finding by the Nevada Supreme Court that voting on issues before a legislative body is a form of self-expression protected by the Constitution.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that it was simply an exercise of legislative power, which can be restricted.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-ethics-law-on-legislative-vote/2011/06/13/AGvzx9SH_story.html

[sakabatou]

1. "My colleagues and are, though, are exempt from this."

[Uncle Joe]

8. Yes but that's only because the Supreme Court is above the law. n/t

[savalez]

2. So can this ruling be used to force

some of them to recuse themselves from the HCR case should it reach them?

[The Last Democratic]

3. You

 would think so!

[drm604]

4. Well, that's a refreshing change.

Although I can't see how any justice could rule otherwise and still be able to look at him or her self in the mirror.

I wonder if the SCOTUS sees any irony between this ruling and the behaviors of some of their own members.

[SoapBox]

5. Ditto.

...irony.

Guess that really sums it up.

[classysassy]

6. The Supreme Court

should be non political with term limits.

[Bandit]

7. I wonder if Scalia thinks his own Power can be restricted?

I don't think those on the Extreme Court believe they can be overruled by anyone or anything.. They do as they damn well please and screw everybody else..They feel they have more power than even a President or Congress.