• BigFig
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2142 years ago

    A self imposed code of ethics that will have zero punishment for violations. This is not what people said when they said restrictions on the supreme court

    • pingveno
      link
      fedilink
      472 years ago

      To paraphrase someone else, it has enough should clauses to drive several favorable RV loans through.

    • roguetrick
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      The benefit of a self imposed code of ethics is it gives clear guidelines for impeachment. It’s a “too little too late” situation, but congress absolutely can use that as a guidepost for both investigations and convictions.

    • It’s more than that. Punishments or not, what it does is set clear standards. If you do this, you are in the wrong, kinda thing. It leaves it less ambiguous, and makes it easier for them to be judged.

      • @Emma_Gold_Man@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        8
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Except it doesn’t set any clear standards. It deliberately keeps the standards as vague "should"s while making presumption of their having followed them mandatory. Even then, the exceptions to even those "should"s are gaping holes that swallow the rules.

  • @Rapidcreek@reddthat.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    692 years ago

    Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse: “This is a long-overdue step by the justices, but a code of ethics is not binding unless there is a mechanism to investigate possible violations and enforce the rules. The honor system has not worked for members of the Roberts Court.”

    • Tedesche
      link
      fedilink
      English
      152 years ago

      Kavanaugh: Sorry, I don’t do accountability.

  • Nougat
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    632 years ago

    The code leaves compliance to the justices themselves and does not create any other means of enforcement.

    If the punishment is a fine nothing, then it’s not even worth talking about.

    • Maximilious
      link
      fedilink
      92 years ago

      It’s for the feel goods and gives people something to point at when it becomes a point of contention again.

      • HuddaBudda
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        It does feel a little bit on the cuff of another big reveal doesn’t it?

  • teft
    link
    fedilink
    482 years ago

    The justices said in an unsigned statement that they have long adhered to ethics standards.

    Justice Thomas on the bench like:

    • Nougat
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      142 years ago

      That would require a constitutional amendment, which is a whole thing.

      • @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        We would need an amendment to change the term, but we don’t need an amendment to remove the fixed size of the court.

        We could keep the life term, and just nominate an additional justice in November of the first and third year of every presidential term, which is about as far away from the presidential and midterm elections as we can get. When a justice dies or resigns, we just don’t fill their seat. The size of the court increases with every appointment, and decreases with every death/resignation/impeachment.

        • @ferralcat
          link
          22 years ago

          I’m for making the court big. Make it inconsequential when one joins or leaves. Make it 100 and they can help 10x as many people a year.

        • @WarmSoda@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          182 years ago

          They can’t even pass a budget that should be an automatic process. You really think they can handle a constitutional amendment right now?

          • @ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            32 years ago

            Oh they can pass a constitutional amendment, it just won’t be about term limits for SCOTUS. It would be more like denying access to abortion, presidents serve for life, or some other Christian-Nationalist shit reasons.

        • @shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          132 years ago

          At this point in history, an amendment stating that 11/13 is Chocolate Chip Cookie Day would be impossible. Literally nothing could be popular enough to get past this process:

          “An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.”

    • Lemdee
      link
      fedilink
      102 years ago

      If they’re defining the code then it might be really easy for them to follow, it just might not align with what we might think of as a code of ethics.

    • Melkath
      link
      fedilink
      72 years ago

      They don’t follow laws, why would they follow code that they made up.

      The people said “stop being corrupt” and their answer was “we typed what you said we should do into a word document”.

  • @rayyy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    102 years ago

    Correction: The Corrupt Court says it is adopting a sham code of ethics to fool the gullible.

  • @Rapidcreek@reddthat.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    82 years ago

    The Supreme Court’s new Code of Conduct is just like if your town passed an anti-speeding law but has no police department.

    • Like if the town passed an anti-speeding law, but was entirely reliant on people reporting themselves for speeding, and also didn’t have any penalties for speeding.

    • @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      I disagree.

      It’s been like the town’s cops have been trying to bust people for speeding, but the town never actually posted signs declaring the speed limit. Congress can impeach justices who do not exhibit “good behavior”, but there is no definition of what constitutes good or bad behavior.

      This code of ethics is like the speeders in the town posting a 60mph speed limit sign in the town’s school zones. They have zero intention of enforcing it themselves, and it’s loose enough that they will never be close to breaking it, but it is an indication if the HoR and the Senate want to impeach for breaking it.

    • @Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 years ago

      It’s more like if you had officers to enforce the law, but they themselves don’t always follow the law, and there are no consequences if they are convicted of crimes… What would that look like??

  • HuddaBudda
    link
    fedilink
    62 years ago

    Justices file the same annual financial disclosure reports as other federal judges.

    Can someone tell Justice Clarence Thomas, because he missed that memo. By like a lot. Like an RV size worth, maybe even a property size estate worth.

    The Court will also consider whether amendments to its rules on the disclosure obligations of parties and counsel may be advisable.

    The Court will assess whether it needs additional resources in its Clerk’s Office or Office of Legal Counsel to perform initial and ongoing review of recusal and other ethics issues.

    That’s two maybes for what sounds a lot like “no.”

  • @Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    6
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Infested by corruption, fanatic religiousness and extreme political prejudice. And they claim code of ethics?
    Yeah right, Anyone who believes that bullshit is a moron.
    Republicans always claimed to be the party of law and order, but in reality they are the party of lawlessness, extremism, corruption and even treason.