Legal experts say its time for the Supreme Court’s ethics code to grow some teeth
Legal experts are lamenting the lack of an enforceable judicial ethics code, with some calling for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s recusal, following a New York Times report that a symbol of the “Stop the Steal” movement to reject the 2020 election was flown outside Alito’s home in the wake of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Ten leading legal experts told Salon Friday that the conduct — the flying of an upside-down flag, a known symbol of the movement to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, at a justice’s home — appears to violate the Supreme Court’s own ethics code, adopted last last year, by creating an appearance of bias.
Those experts said it’s far past time for the nine justices who enjoy lifetime appointments to hold themselves to the highest ethical standards. But, they noted, the Supreme Court has shown itself reluctant to do so.
“The situation is out of control,” Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush who worked with Justice Alito on his 2006 Senate confirmation, told Salon. “This is after the insurrection, so it’s really him weighing in, getting involved publicly in a dispute over the insurrection.”
There’s pretty much zero oversight for a supreme court justice, right? I’m kinda surprised he didn’t just lynch a few brown and/or gay people in his front yard because doing so would have equal consequence - none.
In theory he can be impeached.
In practice, he can’t be impeached.
While I get what you mean, they aren’t immune to prosecution for acts outside of their role. He would hopefully still get arrested and charged for lynching people. (Hopefully)
Tried, convicted, appealed all the way up to his own court, conviction overturned.
I mean, his fellow judges might be corrupt enough to do so, but he couldn’t sit on the judging panel for that.
Could he not? I’m genuinely interested, because I was under the impression that there wasn’t anything that could force the justices to recuse themselves.
Anything that could directly effect them financially or if there is a reason that could cause bias is really when they are supposed to recuse. He lied and said his wife’s actions in Jan 6 didn’t effect his judgement on that case but no one could accept murder charges not effecting him financially in any way.
But Clarence Thomas accepted gifts from people who then argued in front of the Supreme Court without recusing himself without facing any consequences, so is there anything to stop it?
I understand how you could compare the two situations but I can also see how they can lie about the gift being unrelated, where them being the charged being prosecuted can’t really lie his way out of showing up. Also, it would look ridiculous for him to walk back and forth across the room, he’d need a rolly chair.
They don’t recuse themselves if their wife was part of an insurrection and there are no consequences for that.
Couldn’t he? What rule prevents him? Like, it’s the most obvious situation ever where he shouldn’t be allowed to, but it’s there an actual law somewhere saying so?
He’d get a blanket pardon for the duration of his appointment to that date. It wouldn’t even go to trial.
Oh please… Lol
In practice they are immune.
What was the case where charges were brought for lynching someone against a supreme Court judge? I must have missed that one
With the current state of American politics I would expect the following to happen: