ADVERTISEMENT

The Supreme Court says it is adopting a code of ethics for the first time

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,442
58,937
113
About time!:

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.




FILE - The U.S Supreme Court is seen, Nov. 3, 2023, in Washington. 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 issue has vexed the court for several months, over a series of stories questioning the ethical practices of the justices. Many of those stories focused on Justice Clarence Thomas and his failure to disclose travel and other financial ties with wealthy conservative donors including Harlan Crow and the Koch brothers. But Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor also have been under scrutiny.



Three justices, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh, have voiced support for an ethics code in recent months. In May, Chief Justice John Roberts said there was more the court could do to "adhere to the highest ethical standards," without providing any specifics.




Public trust in and approval of the court is hovering near record lows, according to a Gallup Poll released just before the court's new term began on Oct. 2.




FILE - Members of the Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. Bottom row, from left, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 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.
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File
As recently as last week, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the justices could quiet some of the criticism and a Democratic push to impose an ethics code on the court by putting in place their own policy.

Durbin's panel has been planning to subpoena Crow and conservative activist Leonard Leo about their roles in organizing and paying for justices' luxury travel.

The committee has been investigating the court's ethics and passed an ethics code, though all 10 Republicans on the panel voted against it.
Republicans complained that Democrats were mostly reacting to decisions they didn't like from the conservative-dominated court, including overturning the nationwide right to an abortion.

The proposal would require that justices provide more information about potential conflicts of interest. It would allow impartial panels of judges to review justices' decisions not to step aside from cases and require public, written explanations about their decisions not to recuse. It would also seek to improve transparency around gifts received by justices and set up a process to investigate and enforce violations around required disclosures. The Democratic bill had little prospect of becoming law in the Republican-controlled House, much less the closely divided Senate.

The push for an ethics code was jump-started by a series of stories by the investigative news site ProPublica detailing the relationship between Crow and Thomas. Crow has for more than two decades paid for nearly annual vacations, purchased from Thomas and others the Georgia home in which the justice's mother still lives and helped pay for the private schooling for a relative.

ProPublica also reported on Alito's Alaskan fishing trip with a GOP donor, travel that Leo helped arrange. The Associated Press reported that Sotomayor, aided by her staff, has advanced sales of her books through college visits over the past decade.
The court's initial step on ethics, in the spring, did not mollify critics. Roberts declined an invitation from Durbin to testify before the Judiciary panel, but the chief justice provided a "Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices" signed by all nine justices that described the ethical rules they follow about travel, gifts and outside income.

The statement provided by Roberts said that the nine justices "reaffirm and restate foundational ethics principles and practices to which they subscribe in carrying out their responsibilities as Members of the Supreme Court of the United States."

The statement promised at least some small additional disclosure when one or more among them opts not to take part in a case. But the justices have been inconsistent in doing so since.
 
Man, I bet there are 100-year old West Virginia grandmas with more teeth than their new code has.

guidelines.gif
 
So the left leaners here were all over the SCOTUS when they had no ethics code. Then they create an ethics code and it's not tough enough. To give credit where credit is due, there has been one actual suggestion in this thread, and that's adopt the ethics code used by lower courts.

Joes Place will be disappointed though. He will have to move his goalpost on Thomas. Joes Place is extremely adept at that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: abby97
So the left leaners here were all over the SCOTUS when they had no ethics code. Then they create an ethics code and it's not tough enough. To give credit where credit is due, there has been one actual suggestion in this thread, and that's adopt the ethics code used by lower courts.

Joes Place will be disappointed though. He will have to move his goalpost on Thomas. Joes Place is extremely adept at that.
I do think that it's fair to criticize an ethics code that doesn't assign any kind of penalties for violating the code. It's "lip service" to act like something is being done, when nothing is being done.

And we can all suggest improvements/enhancements - I think any violation should result in the offender paying the value of gifts, plus a 3x punitive amount in fines - to be collected and donated to some kind of legal justice fund. Plus the offense should be reviewed by a panel of non-partisan/bi-partisan judges/experts with the authority to administer punishment up to and including removal. But, none of that will ever happen: why would the foxes ever let the chickens have any authority over them?
 
So the left leaners here were all over the SCOTUS when they had no ethics code. Then they create an ethics code and it's not tough enough. To give credit where credit is due, there has been one actual suggestion in this thread, and that's adopt the ethics code used by lower courts.

Joes Place will be disappointed though. He will have to move his goalpost on Thomas. Joes Place is extremely adept at that.
Also - I don't think it should be left-leaners, or right-leaners that should be the only ones critical of this. When the people/organizations who have business before the court, and they're giving the judges gifts with SIGNIFICANT value, we should all be critical, and worried. Justice isn't blind when the judges are being funded by people involved in the cases they're reviewing.
 
So the left leaners here were all over the SCOTUS when they had no ethics code. Then they create an ethics code and it's not tough enough. To give credit where credit is due, there has been one actual suggestion in this thread, and that's adopt the ethics code used by lower courts.

Joes Place will be disappointed though. He will have to move his goalpost on Thomas. Joes Place is extremely adept at that.
So how does this new code force Thomas into conducting himself ethically then?
 
Zero trust in the Supreme Court. There should be term limits and I would love to see all of them leave the Court. No accountability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: franklinman
Too little too late, the Supreme Court is a joke that needs massive reforms.

Make SCOTUS great again!
 
Roberts is making everyone give 'Pinky Promises'.

It's all fixed, now, folks. Nothing more to see here!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huey Grey
A real code of ethics would launch an investigation over Thomas. We all know this whole thing is because of him. But instead we got an honor system which Thomas could give two shits about to begin with.
 
So the left leaners here were all over the SCOTUS when they had no ethics code. Then they create an ethics code and it's not tough enough. To give credit where credit is due, there has been one actual suggestion in this thread, and that's adopt the ethics code used by lower courts.

Joes Place will be disappointed though. He will have to move his goalpost on Thomas. Joes Place is extremely adept at that.
Look, this is a great first step; I'm glad they're doing this.

But if there are no penalties for violating the ethics code, this is also little more than putting lipstick on a pig.
 
Look, this is a great first step; I'm glad they're doing this.

But if there are no penalties for violating the ethics code, this is also little more than putting lipstick on a pig.
Yup

A policy w/o any ramifications/liabilities for SC Justices is toothless.
They should have a 'one warning' policy.
2nd one, and you're out.

Thomas should have used all his Mulligans up already.
 
So the left leaners here were all over the SCOTUS when they had no ethics code. Then they create an ethics code and it's not tough enough. To give credit where credit is due, there has been one actual suggestion in this thread, and that's adopt the ethics code used by lower courts.

Joes Place will be disappointed though. He will have to move his goalpost on Thomas. Joes Place is extremely adept at that.
LOL...that's an "ethics code"? I guess that explains your politics. I hope you have a more rigid code governing your work product.
 
Been under the weather for a couple of days. So, let's start with the usual entrance poll question: how many of you have actually read the standards?

With that out of the way, a few high level reactions...
1. First, while I know many of you wanted a code that was written to "Get Justice Thomas," the code is pretty much no more, and no less, than what you would or should expect it to be. Indeed, its substantive standards are substantially similar to those of other codes. Among other things:
a. unsurprisingly, its recusal examples focus predominantly upon relationships with 'parties' to a case, and specifically exclude amici
b. the code does actually list a number of very specific instances where disqualification is called for, even though ethics codes tend to fudge the ultimate standards
c. There is also a piece about third parties not 'trafficking' on their social or other relationship with a justice so as to suggest some unique influence over them
d. interestingly, the code is in fact written to consider disqualification in the event a spouse has an 'interest' substantially affected by litigation, which is notably different from other references to 'financial interests'. So there's your opportunity.
2. Now i know you all want this to be crimes or other triggers for some sort of enforcement sanctions. As to that:
a. Ethics codes don't work that way in the normal course
b. The court does a decent, though not great, job explaining why scotus is different (institutionally in terms of its independence, and practically in terms of the impacts on litigants) and why what they refer to as "the rule of necessity" sometimes tips the balance in favor of participation by a justice in a case
c. As a practical matter, while no one talks about it publicly, the justices do consult with each other on these things, so administration is somewhat informal
d. At the end of the day, justices are subject to removal based on a failure of 'good behavior'.
 
Been under the weather for a couple of days. So, let's start with the usual entrance poll question: how many of you have actually read the standards?

With that out of the way, a few high level reactions...
1. First, while I know many of you wanted a code that was written to "Get Justice Thomas," the code is pretty much no more, and no less, than what you would or should expect it to be. Indeed, its substantive standards are substantially similar to those of other codes. Among other things:
a. unsurprisingly, its recusal examples focus predominantly upon relationships with 'parties' to a case, and specifically exclude amici
b. the code does actually list a number of very specific instances where disqualification is called for, even though ethics codes tend to fudge the ultimate standards
c. There is also a piece about third parties not 'trafficking' on their social or other relationship with a justice so as to suggest some unique influence over them
d. interestingly, the code is in fact written to consider disqualification in the event a spouse has an 'interest' substantially affected by litigation, which is notably different from other references to 'financial interests'. So there's your opportunity.
2. Now i know you all want this to be crimes or other triggers for some sort of enforcement sanctions. As to that:
a. Ethics codes don't work that way in the normal course
b. The court does a decent, though not great, job explaining why scotus is different (institutionally in terms of its independence, and practically in terms of the impacts on litigants) and why what they refer to as "the rule of necessity" sometimes tips the balance in favor of participation by a justice in a case
c. As a practical matter, while no one talks about it publicly, the justices do consult with each other on these things, so administration is somewhat informal
d. At the end of the day, justices are subject to removal based on a failure of 'good behavior'.

Admittedly not a legal expert, but this seems thin on enforcement if someone breaks the ethics code. Would you say for example, that if they’d had this in place all along, there’d have been penalties for Thomas?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
I do think that it's fair to criticize an ethics code that doesn't assign any kind of penalties for violating the code. It's "lip service" to act like something is being done, when nothing is being done.

And we can all suggest improvements/enhancements - I think any violation should result in the offender paying the value of gifts, plus a 3x punitive amount in fines - to be collected and donated to some kind of legal justice fund. Plus the offense should be reviewed by a panel of non-partisan/bi-partisan judges/experts with the authority to administer punishment up to and including removal. But, none of that will ever happen: why would the foxes ever let the chickens have any authority over them?
How do you know nothing will be done?
 
How do you know nothing will be done?

Tradition, mostly.

Nothing has been done about unreported trips, the paid off RV loan, the late and inaccurate disclosure forms, the failure to recuse in cases involving a Justice’s wife, the multiple leaks to the WSJ … and the failure to even investigate the Justices’ potential role in the release of the Dobbs draft.
 
a. unsurprisingly, its recusal examples focus predominantly upon relationships with 'parties' to a case, and specifically exclude amici
There was literally no need to state this in any "code"; it is a standard ethics expectation.

And Thomas has violated it many times already.
 
c. There is also a piece about third parties not 'trafficking' on their social or other relationship with a justice so as to suggest some unique influence over them
What do we do? "Ban" these 'parties' from America?

It is the JUSTICES who must refrain from these "relationships". 100% their responsibility.
Again: Thomas is one of the worst perps here.
 
How do you know nothing will be done?

The only thing the article says they've done is "reaffirm and restate foundational ethics principles and practices to which they subscribe in carrying out their responsibilities as Members of the Supreme Court of the United States.". If they've developed a code with no agreed-upon, enforceable penalties, then they won't be able to do anything when someone violates their code. It will be a set of guidelines, with no penalty for ignoring it. Rules without documented penalties are useless.
 
Admittedly not a legal expert, but this seems thin on enforcement if someone breaks the ethics code. Would you say for example, that if they’d had this in place all along, there’d have been penalties for Thomas?
Actually, not likely, or at least very unclear.

First, as I noted, most 'ethics codes' don't, in fact provide penalties or enforcement sanctions. Those are called "laws" and they're passed by Congress.

Second, if Congress passed 'laws' with enforcement sanctions - and it's certainly plausible that they could - the specific nature of potential sanctions could determine whether or not the law is in fact enforceable as against Scotus. I would think, for example, that criminal offenses could be. But Scotus is in fact an independent branch of government and there's a non-trivial line of thought to the effect that they police themselves in most matters -- just as Congress does.
 
What do we do? "Ban" these 'parties' from America?

It is the JUSTICES who must refrain from these "relationships". 100% their responsibility.
Again: Thomas is one of the worst perps here.
the commentary provides that if a third party is holding themself out as having unique influence over a justice based on social or other contacts, the justice is to cease the relationship. I have certainly heard of justice thomas' deep social relationships, and with people who have viewpoints, but I've not seen stuff to suggest those third parties were somehow trfficking in that.
 
Rules without documented penalties are useless.
i would disagree with that. as a practical matter, ethical codes can and do set public expectations, which in turn are commonly cited for their persuasive weight as to appropriate or inappropriate conduct in connection with claims of actual legal violations. In my world, for example, the PhRMA and the AdvaMed ethical code very much dictate behavior
 
Actually, not likely, or at least very unclear.

First, as I noted, most 'ethics codes' don't, in fact provide penalties or enforcement sanctions. Those are called "laws" and they're passed by Congress.

Second, if Congress passed 'laws' with enforcement sanctions - and it's certainly plausible that they could - the specific nature of potential sanctions could determine whether or not the law is in fact enforceable as against Scotus. I would think, for example, that criminal offenses could be. But Scotus is in fact an independent branch of government and there's a non-trivial line of thought to the effect that they police themselves in most matters -- just as Congress does.

I don’t disagree with what you posted, save that the Supreme Court has never policed themselves, or at least made public that they did.

Honestly believe that the attitude they’ve long adopted surrounding the basic theme of “trust us”, but having undercut themselves often is a big part of the problem.

This is a nice first step towards regaining public trust, but it’s only a first step.
 
Actually, not likely, or at least very unclear.

First, as I noted, most 'ethics codes' don't, in fact provide penalties or enforcement sanctions. Those are called "laws" and they're passed by Congress.

Second, if Congress passed 'laws' with enforcement sanctions - and it's certainly plausible that they could - the specific nature of potential sanctions could determine whether or not the law is in fact enforceable as against Scotus.
The law would absolutely be "enforceable" against SCOTUS.

Congress created the additional SC seats (SCOTUS did not).
Congress sets their salaries and resources (SCOTUS does not).

Congress could absolutely create rules that, if violated, would result in expulsion, if 'convicted' of those violations.

Create a list of "minor infractions" that if you commit >5 or 10 of those and you are done; #'s are updated monthly or annually so that justices and the public know where they sit.

Create a list of "major infractions" that if you commit any of those, you maybe get one mulligan, then you are done.

You make clear lists of those, and Justices WILL comply with them. WHEN there is a clear, career ending penalty for them.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT