That is because there ARE consequences.
you are not "seated for life" in your position, immune from public scrutiny.
Use your brain here.
The Supreme Court says it is adopting a code of ethics for the first time
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
you are not "seated for life" in your position, immune from public scrutiny.
Use your brain here.
Very fair.
The broader point is, ethical codes are not designed to satisfy or create rights for third parties, they're designed to help the people who have to make decisions regarding their personal conduct.
Recusal when there is ANY conflict of interest is a common legal requirement in many instances.
Any lawyer knows this.
Failure to do so can result in both legal and civil repercussions.
maybe, maybe not. I know that's what you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. And, there is a clear, career ending penalty available. it's called impeachment. plenty of arguments both ways whether that's an exclusive penalty
So, Thomas needs to divorce a spouse who actively participated in an insurrection, then?
Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.
If you want guardrails against improper influences from 3rd parties, you make rules. Violators to those rules get ejected.
O
Oddly, and by analogy to the principle that divestitute of a financial interest allows a justice to hear a case, that might well work (assuming there's actually an issue there under the standard)
the only consequences that flow from a violation of the two codes i cited are to the extent that a tribunal otherwise finds that noncompliance with them amounts to fraud, in a proceeding independnet of those organization.
and there it is, the reveal!
Look, I know you think that the whole end of this exercise is/should be to "get" justice Thomas. But as i noted, ethical codes are not crafted to "GET" someone you don't like. that's just not what they are. What you are talking about are called criminal laws. As i have noted, Congress can create crimes - they do it all the time - and most of the criminal prohibitions they create are perfectly enforceable. But some aren't. And one further thing I do know is that Scotus has never, ever, enacted a valid criminal law.
BTW, for completeness, check out, eg, Harry Claiborne
Really?
Medical device companies I worked for who followed similar "industry codes" would often fire sales-people who openly violated them. When the company agreed to those codes, they enforced violations internally.
I know of 2 sales guys who got axed due to violations which went against what the company claimed it would adhere to (2nd/3rd-hand info, because those guys just "disappeared" from the employee lists one day, and the explanations would work their way through channels; sometimes there'd be "training updates" that would cover those exact policies)
So, none, then.
Which confirms impeachment is a political tool.
Not a legal or criminal one.
and the consequences to the company? the company can fire people if they want, phrma doesn't fire companies
I think that - specific to government/public officials, what you're saying was a lot more true 20 years ago than it is now. Now we seem to be firmly in the era of "yeah, so what?!" when it comes to those officials breaking rules and daring anyone to try and hold them accountable. Any other profession, or any other era, and Clarence Thomas would've been shamed into resigning for all the "gifts" he's received. Now though? Nothing can/will happen to him.
They have to hire a new salesperson.
The INDIVIDUAL had consequences.
Just like INDIVIDUALS on the Court must have the same.
Did you all notice the wording in the "code of ethics"?
Lots of shoulds and mays. No shalls and musts
Lots of shoulds and mays. No shalls and musts
I would not disagree as to the unfortunate death of shame within politics. (See, eg, Menendez, Robert). Off the top of my head, I think the last honorable resignation that I can recall is probably Al Franken. But I am not on the same page as you with respect to non-criminal recusal decisions.
that's the way most ethical codes are written. you of all people should know that. But you do get a prize for being the first person to suggest that they have actually read the code.
'shall' recuse is a very very different legal term from 'may'
'shall' report any potential conflict of interest or relationship with an item before the court is very different from 'may'. The other Justices then 'may' determine whether that require recusal
See how easy that is to incorporate "shall" into the wording?
So in real terms this is a PR stunt. Nothing in the document changes anything materially.
That's a funny way of saying "he took tons of undisclosed money and gifts from people who have had business in front of the court".
Yup
Simply to appease people into thinking there is no need for Congressional action.
It'll become a Fox talking point against any "new laws" in no time.
"deep social relationships" which only began AFTER he got seated on the Court.
none of them knew him from Adam the week before it.
And, he didn't think any of the lavish gifts were big enough to need to report. he thought everyone gets vacations like that. He was shocked and thought he was doing the right thing. He has trouble with reality.
not at all. the document sets expectations, and i would firmly expect that it is discussed among the justices on an ongoing basis.
as to your knowledge of ethics, that's the point, you are probably responsible, deep down, for any squishiness.
Remind me again, precisely, which party this was? Because nobody else can seem to.
Why start now? If the court has gone this long with out addressing the issue to the point that they now need a code what gives you confidence that they will discuss on an on going basis?
the fact that they already do
Again, i don't begrudge anyone their desire for a particular result, but you're not going to get it through an ethics code. Indeed, a code designed to produce a result would probably be an unethical code.
You're kidding, right? Or are you saying it's okay to take literally millions from people who have interests before the court as long as they're not PERSONALLY involved in the particular case being decided?
I’m curious what gives you the optimism that this will lead to change anything with the SC? They fought this tooth and nail, and imo only did so to try and forestall anything with actual teeth down the road from congress.
I'll be more than pleased to shut up on this if you just tell me the name of the party. Because that's what matters.
well, for starters, i am an optimist by nature who presumes that even our modern leaders are not corrupt but rather just have a very different vision than i do in some cases. As far as forestalling goes, there's lots of reasons for that, but if congress was as serious about it as some would have liked, they could have and would have enacted something.
But i suppose as to the specifics of my optimism, it probably stems from something i noted earlier. Ethical codes - particularly published ones - help to set public expectations. Even though the court and the justices themselves will decide in the first and last instances whether recusal is appropriate in a case, litigants before the court, and the public at large, now have a written standard to consult. As to litigants, I have little doubt that some will be combing through records in important cases trying to find some nugget to seek recusal for. But note that there's a built in check against litigants abusing that, just as there is for all recusal motions -- if you lose, you'll be appearing before that judge. And in this case, it's probably an even higher bar given the rule of necessity.
Has Thomas voted to allow millionaire...and billionaire...donors to hide their identities when contributing millions to political groups? A simple yes or no will suffice.
The other thing to keep in mind, Thomas could already be under Double-Secret Probation. We wouldn't even know.
