The Supreme Court says it is adopting a code of ethics, but it has no means of enforcement

[Eugene]

Last edited Mon Nov 13, 2023, 05:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday adopted its first code of ethics, in the face of sustained criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some justices, but the code lacks a means of enforcement.

The policy, agreed to by all nine justices, does not appear to impose any significant new requirements and leaves compliance entirely to each justice.

Indeed, the justices said they have long adhered to ethics standards and suggested that criticism of the court over ethics was the product of misunderstanding, rather than any missteps by the justices.

“The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules,” the justices wrote in an unsigned statement that accompanied the code. “To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.”

-snip-

BY MARK SHERMAN
Updated 3:58 PM EST, November 13, 2023


Read more: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-ethics-code-conflicts-clarence-thomas-64d393ceb6f05402d762dca06f0f4187

---

EDIT: article updated at link

Original AP headline: The Supreme Court says it is adopting a code of ethics for the first time

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is adopting its first code of ethics, in the face of sustained criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some justices.

The policy was issued by the court Monday. The justices, who have hinted at internal deliberations over an ethics code, last met Thursday in their private conference room at the court.

[Attilatheblond]

1. Seeing is believing

Being able to real ALL the fine print is even more helpful. A court led by a man who arranged a way around Irish adoption laws probably isn't gonna captain a real set of ethics rules.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. Who wrote the dissent? NT

[lastlib]

20. Unsigned, but joined by four.........(I presume)

Clarence, Sammy, BeerBoy, and Amy Conehead.

[Lovie777]

32. LOL.......................

you made my day.

[peppertree]

58. For shame. Poor Handmaid!

Stepford Wives have feelings too, you know.

The husbands just have to to remember to program them in, is all.

[C_U_L8R]

3. "it's not our fault"

"it's YOUR fault for misunderstanding"

Typical rightwing weasel tactics.

[PTL_Mancuso]

27. Yes, We the People had a Misunderstanding. GTFO!

Mistakes were Made

... by you stupid peons

[noclue023]

40. guarding !

Isn't like the fox guarding the hen house ?

[Rebl2]

72. At least

Congress can call SC judges out if they don’t follow their own code of ethics, for what that’s worth.

[2naSalit]

4. Who gets to see/read it?

And will it have to meet with approval of those outside SCOTUS like the Judiciary Cmte.?

[50 Shades Of Blue]

6. There's a link to it at the OP's link.

[2naSalit]

9. But does it have to be...

Reviewed and approved by anyone but the offending justices?

[50 Shades Of Blue]

10. Not that I saw.

[2naSalit]

13. That would be my point.

Without external review and approval, it means nothing. They made a backroom agreement amongst themselves and released some language to quell the inquiries but that's all.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

26. I didn't say it meant anything. I simply said where was available to peruse!

[2naSalit]

36. Yes...

And I saw that before your post which is why I asked the question again.

[Igel]

63. What external review and approval is required for adjudicating

ethical breaches for Representatives and Senators?

Answer: None. They police their own. They can expel members, but that happens seldom. They can strip members of committee assignments or censure them, but that happens (a) seldom and (b) along party lines for the most part.

Our democracy has a Constitution. If the Senate and House don't cede their authority to an external source, or cede authority to the President or SCOTUS, why should the others?

Yet that's what I hear those what say they support the Constitution demand.

Checks and balances, but not rule and command.

[Shermann]

54. They are chiseled into stone tablets

Oh snap! Brett dropped them.

[2naSalit]

55. They are still telling us that...

They are above the rest of us.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

5. Now they can say they have one, and go right back to doing WETF they want.

[DENVERPOPS]

34. Exactly correct

They all love their "code of ethics". Especially because there is no punishment what so ever for a violation of their code of ethics.
They don't even get a hand slap, and are free to continue on with their corrupt behavior........

[FakeNoose]

7. How about calling it the "Clarence Thomas Code"?

[erronis]

8. I can't wait to see Andy Borowitz's take on this.

It could be something like:

Today, the US Supreme Court found a poor beleaguered billionaire on its doorstep with a a name-tag saying "Hi, I'm an unloved waif named 'Ethic'. Please adopt me!"

[Ocelot II]

11. Are there any consequences for violating it?

Like maybe losing your parking spot at the Supreme Court building, or having to pay for getting your robe dry-cleaned yourself?

[lastlib]

22. Of course not. This crowd wouldn't approve anything with actual teeth......

[Autumn]

12. Yeah sure they will.

Bet your ass they won't abide by any of them.

[mucifer]

14. Big kudos to ProPublica for uncovering

The grift !

[Emile]

15. When will they release this code of ethics rules

to the public?

[NYC Liberal]

16. Without independent enforcement or force of law, this doesn't mean anything.

Especially since they claimed they already follow ethics standards when they demonstrably don’t, and nothing was done about it.

It’ll be no different than what cops do: “We investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrong."

[progressoid]

17. Well that should fix it!

[aggiesal]

18. The Senate should have to approve SCOTUS's ethics code. n/t

[Bird Lady]

19. This means nothing!

They will continue to act as they have, their greed and avarice will still be on display. The real problem is they feel entitled and have nothing to control them.

[Enoki33]

21. Suspect there will be a number of

legal loopholes and zero penalties with any real enforcement teeth.

[lastlib]

23. "Loopholes?? We don't need no stinkin' loopholes!"

Becuz there is no enforcement/penalties. "We can do whatever the corrupt fuck we want--we're living up to the code of ethics becuz we say so." That's what this amounts to, it seems.

[NewHendoLib]

24. sure, they "long adhered to ethics standards" - except when some of them didn't

[Skittles]

25. I would be fired for behaving like Clarence Fucking Thomas

but he continues to be a SC justice? FUCK THAT

[bucolic_frolic]

28. The Secret Sauce is a public relations shield

But the ingredients? Don't ask. And no transparency.

[Bluethroughu]

29. This court's conservatives have broke this institution.

It has no confidence from the public.
They should resign in disgrace.

[AnnaLee]

30. We will see.

Noone knows the art of weasel words quite as well as lawyers.

[JoseBalow]

31. Enforcement?

[kimbutgar]

33. Too bad it won't be retroactive because Clarence has broken all the rules as well as Alito!

[Probatim]

35. So Andy Borowitz did not, in fact, write this article?

I suspect he'll provide his take on this tomorrow.

[Midnight Writer]

37. How many Justices just attended The Federalist Society convention, and what were they paid?

How many cases that the Supreme Court hears are fostered through the legal system by The Federalist Society, the same Society that installed these Justices into their jobs?

[twodogsbarking]

38. And if you break the code you get three all expense paid trips to any destination on earth or beyond.

[zanana1]

39. They're self-policing.

Y'know,like when a cop shoots somebody and there's an "internal investigation"?

[moniss]

41. To sum up the code

it will say that it is up to each justice to determine what is ethical and what requires recusal or disclosure.

[kairos12]

42. An ethics code with no

enforcement mechanism.

This is a big f.u. from the MAGA court.

[Skittles]

57. I've had to take detailed ethics classes every year at my job for DECADES

I WOULD BE FIRED IF I ACTED LIKE CLARENCE THOMAS, *WHY* is a SC JUSTICE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH THIS SHIT, IT IS INSANE!!!

[Aussie105]

43. Hey look people, we discovered ethics!

So all good, nothing to see here, look elsewhere. And stop complaining!

BUT . . . wasn't ethics supposed to be part of your personal makeup from the word go?

You got on the Supreme Court because you were supposed to have brought your incorruptible, rock solid personal ethics to the job in the first place?

We thought we could trust you.
Trust is hard to earn, and easily lost.
This won't do it.

Without oversight, without consequences, it's not going to work.
It's just going to drive the backroom deals, the implied favour for a friend type deals further out of sight.

[ZonkerHarris]

44. make it retroactive

[KPN]

45. "Misunderstanding" my ass!

[appleannie1]

46. What good is a code of ethics if you can't enforce it?

Does this mean no more private jet trips to go on vacation in luxury yachts? Or are they just going to sneak in the dead of night?

[Bev54]

47. A lot of "should" No teeth and what are the repercussions for those that ignore?

[Hassler]

48. A Code without Consequences is simply a PR attempt

[Deuxcents]

53. That's exactly my thoughts..

This was done to shut up the critics but I don’t think that’s gonna happen. I think Senator Whitehouse may have something to say about this ..

[republianmushroom]

49. So they can now have a feel good feeling that they now have a code of ethics.

But there is no teeth in it, but we can feel good that they do have one or going to have one. I guess.

[SouthernDem4ever]

50. They are so full of crap

suggested that criticism of the court over ethics was the product of misunderstanding, rather than any missteps by the justices.

Ya sure, and I have some swampland in Yuma to sell ya.

[louis-t]

51. Much like the cries of "big business will police itself'

in the '90s, this too will fail.

[rurallib]

52. This was some damn hard work

Clarence and Sam cold use a little break - maybe a trip somewhere........

[ananda]

56. Non-binding laughably but horribly insane!

Ugghhh

[Shoonra]

59. The Constitution provides a means of enforcement

The Constitution provides that federal judges (which would include the Supreme Court Justices) "shall hold their offices during good behavior" (Art. III, sec. 1). This is a lower threshold than the "high crimes and misdemeanors" used to impeach executive officers. So far, Congress has removed several judges by impeaching them for "high crimes and misdemeanors" but it could simply have determined that they had failed on good behavior grounds.

More than that, the Constitution does not set out any process for determining a failure of good behavior, so we don't know if it's a committee hearing, a hearing of the whole House, whether it requires a simple majority or a two-thirds votes, etc. But it would be interesting if Congress worked up a way to remove judges simply on the "good behavior" standard.

[SoFlaBro]

60. So it was a massive waste of fucking time and energy to even reveal this piece of shit.

[PlutosHeart]

61. An attempt to thwart off those nasty

little subpoenas.

Not working for me.

[AverageOldGuy]

62. Let's see a show of hands:

All who believe this will stop "Justice" Thomas and Ms. Thomas and "Justice" Alito from accepting expensive favors, raise your hand.

Anyone?

Anyhone?

Buehler?

Anyone?

[Magoo48]

64. Really? It's a joke, right? Must be.

That horse has left the barn, had a full life, and is grazing on someone else’s alfalfa in a sunny pasture somewhere.

[MayReasonRule]

65. Ah Yes It's The Old Super Secret Double Pinky-Swear!!!

Nudge, nudge, wink wink, say no more!

[twodogsbarking]

66. They need rules to know right from wrong. Good grief.

[John Shaft]

67. It's like children policing the cookie jar

when their hands are already in the cookie jar.

[Ford_Prefect]

68. No rules, no enforcement, no penalties, no legal consequences, no pubic record of the infractions...Oops !

Oh, My! But do we have a problem? Too many rich friends with agendas before the courts?

Same problems as before with a new way to hide and pretend to be above the law. Bribery is bribery. The appearance of improper behavior is one of the things other Federal Judges are expected to answer for. In every other institution there are independent inspector generals whose job is to oversee this kind of regulation and to investigate complaints without prejudice.

How do we go forwards from this point without such oversight?????????

[jaxexpat]

69. Enforcement is simple. Lower the violator's salary to $1.00 per annum.

Well within congressional power per the constitution. Or at least that's what the Magats would have us believe.

[JHB]

70. Not sure that'll do much. Their billionaire "friends" will easily make up the shortfall

...and I'm sure it could and would be argued as a justification for taking bribes "loans" and "gifts".

[msfiddlestix]

71. Their Corrupt logic Just keeps getting more and more Corrupt

The staggering dumbfuckery on this issue alone is enough to REMOVE those wretched Religious Cult fuckwits
just on incompetence and intellectual dishonesty.

imho.

[NotHardly]

73. Not worth the paper it is written on ... no enforcement, a list of suggestions rather than rules

[sakabatou]

74. Not surprised...

Make toothless code of ethics
Claim victory
Wonder why the fuck the People are angry