I find the arrogance of both justices, who in fact are servants of the people, when being held accountable form their actions quite astonishing. They clearly see themselves as far above citizens, almost like royalty. Actually I am sure they feel they are above the law. Their behaviours are the same and Trump and his GOP MAGA elites and theybseem to be reenforcing each other. It is up to the people to hold them accountable now and have the elected legislators remove them from the Court . For this to happen the MAGA dominated GOP has to be outvoted big time in 2024.
Unfortunately, I do not find the arrogance of both justices “quite astonishing.” What I find astonishing is how deeply the monied interests have burrowed themselves into every aspect of American Democracy. To place our hopes on a future Democratic Congress and a simultaneous Democratic President is unrealistic. Right wing billionaires believe that “Everyone has their price” and now Thomas and Alioto are simply the most recent examples of those who can be bought. Democrats can be bought also and Joe Manchin is the most recent example of those who put money and ego ahead of democracy.
Marc, it is truly sad that we have permitted rich white individuals and corporations to buy so much of our government, economy, land, and media. There is truly not a balance here between "right" and "left," but no one working for the government should be taking anything from outside groups of any kind. If they don't like the low salaries, they should not be in Congress, on the Court, or serving in the White House. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and the other "conservative" justices who bought the lie that "money is speech" and that "corporations are persons" may not have taken money directly, but were bribed so that future cases could be ruled in favor of huge corporations and against people wanting voting or other rights because "too bad, money is speech and corporations should be able to "speak" as much as they like, even to buying elections. There was no provision, though for how corporations being persons would be treated if they committed crimes. A whole corporation can't be thrown into prison. The whole Citizens United case was BS and Roberts was right in the middle of it. How is he ever going to demand any kind of ethics code from the other justices, let alone himself. He does whine loudly that he has integrity, but there is actually little to no evidence of that. There is evidence, though of his misogyny, racism, and xenophobia.
Joe Manchin is not a Democrat. Only pretends that he might have been or might me sometime , he won’t , he’s too entrenched in the ‘ money’ is ‘ power’ cult.
Patricia, you are right about Manchin. He is his own party or at least one in a party of those who have conflicts of interest. He is voting on bills that directly impact his own business and cares nothing for what is needed or what the people of West Virginia want. He cares only for his own business and how to make it more profitable even though it involves burning fossil fuels which we know are destroying our planet. I suspect there are a lot of Republicans who are also in that conflict of interest party.
Ruth, those fossil fuels aren't destroying the planet, only the life on the planet, it is other living organisms for which Manchin has no regard. Like Trump he cares first, foremost, and always for Joe Manchin - screw the rest of living organisms. I apologize for being nit picky, Ruth, but the planet and even some of the life will live on after the catastrophic destruction. It may take billions of years to return to the status we have now. It would be nice if Trumps, MAGAs, Manchins. Sinemas. et al did not return in the distant future.
A blue dog dem is a democrat in name only Exactly what Manchin is. He’s a democrat in a red district who votes more in his own interest or that of the opposing party. He’d be more honest were he an independent who caucused with republicans.
Oh, in other words, a fraud. I was under the impression that a blue dog democrat was one who believes in, and wants to do, what democrats desire, all the while watching the till like a hawk. So do all that is needed and paying for it without going into debt for those accomplishments. Thanks for the clarification.
I suspect (paranoid as I am) that those oligarchs not only have cash to dangle in front of anyone willing to vote for the interests of the billionaires. I suspect they also have thick files of research on every Republican (and a few Democrats) about their financial peccadilloes, sexual experiences, etc. etc. Carrots are out there, but so are the sticks.
I have come to believe that if a Republican is honest when elected, the cash and the files will overcome any moral reluctance to “Vote Oligarch” on Bills, nominations, etc.
You are right and the proof is named Elise Stephanik, formerly a normal person, turned into a Trumpian freak for power and money, now #3 in the house. Cynical? Sounds like it to me.
Marc Nevas ; I find it astonishingly unnerving as this corruption rapidly expands. I listened to an excerpt of a recent speech by President Biden, in which he was calling out the attacks from the MAGA party on newly elected opponents of theirs. The new judge in Wisconsin is being threatened already. We all know that Matt Gaetz is pressuring McCarthy to impeach President Biden. Fani Willis has been threatened by legislators who want to interfere with the prosecution that could deliver justice in her RICO case. Jack Smith is asking for a remedy to tfg's broadcasts on social media of threats and lies which could taint the jury. It seems that the terrorists have cowed law enforcement and intimidated the judge who strongly warned that he could see the inside of a cell. It has not happened , and it is obvious why. Tfg should be incommunicado in a cell right now. If he was virtually anyone else, he would be. Maybe an executive order could provide emergency funds for protection of judges and prosecutors, members of juries, too. Their lives and safety are more important than that of tfg, who enjoys lifetime secret service protection! Our Democracy and freedom is more important than his sorry ass!
I'd agree except that Joe Manchin is certainly NOT a Democrat. Not by any stretch of the most elastic imagination. He "claims" to be a Dem, but his actions and his votes proclaim him to be a DINO.
When I worked for a government contractor, I was strictly prohibited from receiving ANY gifts from groups that I worked with! This same rule should apply to the SCOTUS. If they want gifts and to get rich, they can retire from the court and become a consultant/write a memoir.!
How correct you are, Tim. Not only did we have to sign agreements not to accept gifts we also had to sit through the same boring, lecture/film every year. The government employees we serviced also were warned accepting a gift as lowly as a cup of coffee from us could result in job loss for them.
Tim Baldwin ; Most people don't have the power of a Supreme court justice. That is why they are getting all these goodies. They can decide a case favorably for those who want to buy their way out of inconvenient 'jams'. Same thing with what used to be illegal for representatives in Congress and the Senate. Now we have Citizens United, and bribery is totally 'legal' ; just like not paying taxes, even if you are very wealthy.
Definitely of interest! Senator Whitehouse deserves an "Attaboy" for filing his ethics complaint, although I don't know how far it will go in today's Congress. Alito is suffering from a severe case of "foot in his mouth" disease!
Sen. Whitehouse deserves praise for his ethics filing, detailed and cogent. I watched "The Last Word" with great pleasure, and I agree that unless the House goes blue this legal remedy can't succeed. The principle must remain viable, that the Supreme Court must be constrained by one or more of the other segments of government from arrogating too much power.
George M, In addition to the ethics code that is definitely needed for the SC justices, there needs to be a basic set of qualifications for being on the SC. It should require a significant amount of experience, no previous evidence of racism, misogyny, xenophobia, homo/transphobia, and other extreme biases. Then, some other rules would be helpful like, no precedent should be able to be overturned without a unanimous vote, that is if the precedent is 10 years or more. A strong reason, like new facts that would negate the earlier ruling would also work. The nonsense of getting a super majority so the court can reshape our lives to meet the desires of a few powerful unelected or political people is unacceptable. I know term limits would help too. This could be fixed if there were a will and people were helped to understand what is being done to them by a group of folks, several of whom have demonstrated a lack of integrity, even illegal behavior.
Ruth I agree with a need for a basic set of qualifications, beyond age and citizenship, but I think it needs to be extended to all elected officials at any level of government. For instance. I truly believe that anyone running for any office should be required to display a working knowledge of the Constitution and the operation of Government. One of the more disgusting utterances of tommy tuberville was his inability to name the three branches of Government.
Fay, yes, and Tupperville is the fool who is trying to keep any military advancements from happening unless he can dictate to service women what they are allowed to do related to reproduction. He is an ignorant white guy who has no business being a representative of anything anywhere, but he is a state's Senator. That truly is disgusting, but what can one say, it's Alabama!
Agreed, Ruth, but tommy the tub, doesn't live in Alabama, he lives in Florida, according to reports. Apparently, Alabama is so desperate for the most stupid representation they can find they're willing to overlook the lack of residency. After all, he coached their football team, that should count for something. Jimboy jordan only coached wrestling
George M: You may be aware of the effort underway by Jerry Weiss (Feathers of Hope Substack) to remove Kevin McCarthy from his position as Speaker, by having the House call for "vacating the chair". There are several moderate Republicans who are qualified to fill that position and they are gathering momentum now.
As long as McCarthy remains a slave to the MAGA caucus any worthwhile legislation is not forthcoming.
When we see and hear from elected officials like Senator Whitehouse it give me hope that we, our government and country, will manage to get this issue and other problems solved. Thanks for posting the link.
Thanks, DZK ; This is the interview I was describing in my recent post above. I guess it's called 'eating cake'. They "cannot opine about that which may come before them'. How convenient!
Michael, In Your reply, ...to Hans, I Agree, in Jest, That it is So True ! The *KING OF THE MOUNTAIN , Game*, ... is just Gonna' be " The BAND, PLAYED ON ! ,,,,,,, Untill, Our LORD/GOD, ,,,,RETURNS ! ( Some of, a certain party, of MANKIND ! , Aspire, to be ,,,,,,,,, EQUAL ! .... to GOD !! ) LORD ! , have MERCY !
Hans Flikema : and then Marc Nevas ... I think both of you are correct in offering a “piece” of what I believe is time honored and remarkably “fixed” set of assumptions in this country, i.e. the cluster of assumptions/entitlements that are a gift to White Men as babies, and only grow “more so” as they grow up ... or not as the case might be. White men in this country, and in the countries from which our ancestors emigrated ... to settle here. We need to remember that it wasn’t so very long ago that only white men 100 acres of land were entitled to vote. enjoyed centuries of Privilege. And think about that for a moment. Only white men were entitled to write the laws under which all others would live. This country ... and certainly many others ... have long elevated men over women, and also deliberately subjugated women to men through a complex web of law, economics & social pressure.
And we add considerable intelligence in both Roberts & Alito, and the Droit de Seigneur mindset is not entirely surprising. Obnoxious & unacceptable ... but not altogether surprising. And honestly, this “we are the ones who are entitled by virtue of birthright to make the rules that all others must follow bleeds over in some areas in which we were surprised by the results. I would assert that the entire fight over a woman’s right to maintain control over her own body ... is an offshoot of how white men assume should be her role, position & limited entitlement.
What gives me the most hope is the rather remarkable difference between how 40+ white men and 15 year old white boys see both power & entitlement. In one sense, women need to have the fight for equality now, and we need to win that fight ... both for ourselves & our daughters, and for anyone who didn’t happen to be born “A White Man.” And we need to win because of all the issues we already recognize - the Patriarchy, the Racism & the subjugation of any human being who doesn’t happen to be “White” & “Male”
But ironically, we also need to win that fight for our white sons & our white husbands & lovers. And that’s because with “Privilege” also comes the burden of leadership - all too often handed to those who are least qualified to lead. We will all benefit from a time, a country & a society in which each of us is allowed to assume a role to which we are qualified by virtue of our talents, and in which we are most comfortable by virtue of our nature.
John Roberts won't insist because he is likely compromised himself, or vulnerable. The court won't approve it because 6 of them are conservative and unlikely to admit any of them did anything wrong. I am not even sure the three "liberals" would do it. So that leaves congress passing a law, which won't happen if congress is split between the parties. Democrats will vote for it, Republicans won't because it is "their" justices caught with hands in the till. So it comes down to voters. Is it enough of an issue to sway voters one way or the other? Likely not, but if tied to issues like abortion, freedom of the press, and voting rights it just might have some impact. We have to change the make-up of congress before ethics demands will pass.
OK. Congress passes a law binding SCOTUS to an ethics standard, whereupon corrupt SCOTUS justices' "financial aid" rallies to bring a lawsuit against the legislation, where it is appealed up to the SCOTUS, where it's struck down as unconstitutional. Like it or not, >that's< the play. >That's< Alito's thinking. It doesn't take a Juris PhD or a constitutional scholar to figure out.
DZK ; 'Congress' as it stands now, is compromised by gerrymander, and George Santos is the tip of the iceberg of corruption. How many others are illegitimate, installed by dirty money and equally unethical political maneuvering?
DZK, you are right, but that does not mean it should not be done. It could keep going around, but in the meantime, it would be law until the SC declared it not. If our media could be gotten on board, people would start to see what kind of justices have been forced on us as a people and start to ignore their rulings as Alabama and other states already have. We don't want that, so I am thinking the justices will ultimately surrender. Already, their approval ratings are really low and it is their own fault. No one did that to them.
Wayne, While I subscribe to every element of your argument, I would revise the last sentence to read, “We have to change the make-up of Congress to reform and re-balance the Court by expanding it.” I would add that Reich, in previous newsletters, in my view, has advanced unimpeachable justifications for expanding both the High Court and the lower federal courts.
Expansion might be necessary simply to distribute the workload, but expansion is a short term fix. A republican president could appoint "like minded" judges and the court would revert to conservatism in a few years. Changing the attitude of voters is really key. What do "we the people" really want? Then these desires move the political parties to reflect it. Short term fixes won't correct the court or heal the planet "forever", though it might help in the short term as long as progressives can keep a political majority. I do support term limits for the courts, including the Supreme Court.
The choices are not fully visible so I will say only that, yes, the people demand that the Supreme Court abide by the same ethics rules as all other federal judges and government officials. It just isn’t reasonable that they should be above having an ethics standard applied to their conduct. Who do they think they are, royalty? They hold high office and need to live up to their obligations to their fellow citizens. If they don’t get that they aren’t fit to serve.
Mary, alas, you are right that if the justices have a problem with an ethics code that matches the requirements of other judges, they are not fit to serve. They are not royalty or above the law, although they act as though they are, at least the super 6 do. They forgot they were only elected because they were willing to be pawns for The Federalist Society and they have proven themselves quite good in that role. That is rather funny, though, royalty that are really pawns.
So could this be put on the ballot in every state and all of us citizens vote on it?We should have a say in this,those rulings they pass judgement on affect every one of us.
I also believe that there needs to be term limits for SCOTUS justices,and stricter rules about how anyone gets put on the bench.For instance,no more foolishness like what tfg did with Amy Coney Barrett!I don't care what anyone says,that crap was unethical!!!And also what happened with Obama's pick,Merrick Garland, being all but ignored,what the hell was that?Nobody should EVER be able to make,let alone enforce,that kind of decision!
For definite certain there needs to be heavy duty changes.How the bloody hell are they above the law and untouchable?That's a load of straight up hooey!
We also need to be able to impose term limits on Congress,no one should be allowed to be repeatedly reelected for years on end.People like Mitch McConnell should have been out of office decades ago.(I also believe he is having low blood sugar episodes,some people could be hypoglycemic without being diabetic.It can make a person seem disoriented and mimic a seizure.)
And we have a problem with several Congresscritters too far past their prime with chronic illnesses that refuse to just step away and let someone else be elected in their place.
Until we find a way to solve these issues,the people who are in SCOTUS and Congress will continue to work for the highest bidders and to Hell with the rest of us.(How about Publicly funded elections,anyone?No more obscenely wealthy people buying our public servants for their personal use!)
It doesn't matter how the judges feel about being placed under scrutiny when it comes to declaring gifts and groutites given to them by private concerns. The integrity of the court is at stake. The only reasons why the current members of the Supreme Court wouldn't want to be treated like all the other elected officials when it comes to declaring special considerations from outside individuals or originations gives cause for concern. Its a healthy idea to enact provisions that would force the members of the Supreme Court to divulge any and all gifts from anywhere. Those who wear the "Robs" should have no problem with personal honesty.
I agree with Robert Reich that all gifts to the SCOTUS should be banned, not just disclosed. On the other hand, a Supreme Court Justice should be able to afford an expensive vacation every few years. Maybe their salaries should be increased. Robert's and Thomas' wives deserve to be investigated and a Congressional ethics law should be passed that includes spouses.
Gloria--The justices currently earn around $300,000.00 a year. Plenty of money to take a nice vacation every so often, I would think. As for gifts, there is nothing wrong with someone giving a gift to a justice, it just has to be declarer. The same as everyone else.
Donald, I didn't know what SC justices earned and they only work 9 months of the year. People complain about teachers having time off and teachers work at least as hard as the justices do and earn less than a third of what the justices do. I do not agree about the gift thing. There is no reason anyone has to give a judge or justice any gift, except family members and close friends for birthdays, holidays, and other big family events. No millionaire should be donating to any officials. If they want to donate, there are thousands of needy organizations they can give to that would really appreciate the gift and no one's integrity would be at risk.
Ruth--Justices a still people. If by chance an acquaintance gave a gift, for what ever reason, to a justice that's a perfectly normal thing. All that is needed is for the justice to declare it. Any and all elected officials in our government must do that currently. The Justices aren't elected I'll give in to that but they should still bend to the same scrutiny as everyone else.
Donald, an acquaintance gift is not worth a couple hundred thousand dollars; it just isn't. I don't know, but a tie or hat or book are acquaintance gifts and of course should be reported. An RV is not. Neither are flights on private jets for vacations. Those are bribes, whether reported or not!
So you think >bribery< is legitimate, as long as the one being bribed admits and declares it? Please forgive my ham-fisted question. You may not agree it's bribery. Please explain.
DZK--You're taking for granted all gifts are bribes! I'm sure some are given in the same manner as you would give any friend a gift. But, if a gift is considered extravagant and over the top I would hope the justice given the gift would excuse himself or herself from rendering any decision relating to the individual giving the gift. That is in a perfect world.
For those of us who do not hold the destiny of a nation, or even a state or local government in our hands, that may seem reasonable. SCOTUS justices and other high-ranking government officials are not among that number - and shouldn't be considered to be. >That's< the deal! >That's< the trade-off. That's why ethics codes exist in all branches, bureaus, and departments associated with the federal government, in particular. Only the SCOTUS seems to allow themselves "gifts" of any kind. Strictly speaking, even if the president himself, or even a State Department official accepts a gift from a foreign leader through diplomacy, that gift becomes the property of the US Government. Only the SCOTUS holds itself above those concerns of "common" people. Quid-pro-quo gifting is particularly suspect. It looks like a quite lot of quid-pro-quo-in's a'goin' on with the SCOTUS.
DZK--As things exist now I agree there is a high degree of uncertainty relating to an individual's honesty. Justices are human and as such are subject to all sorts of human frailties. Corruption on any level is unacceptable, even "Supremely Speaking."
As a further thought, if you think about it for a moment, that's what's so perplexing about how ol' P01135809 is being given such "kid glove" treatment. Look at what happened to his Proud Boy leader. I mean, why is there even doubt with >anyone< about how ol' P01135809 should be "disposed of," when if anything, he should be treated far worse! It's >exactly< the same issue wearing a different face!
DZK--There is a slight difference between the leader of the Proud Boys and Trump. The latter received 75,000,000 votes from our fellow Americans in the last Presidential election. How do we punish an individual with that kind of following without pissing off 75,000,000 Americans.
Donald, how about just keeping the temptation from the justices' door and saying that such gifts are illegal. That would make the crime of bribery clearer when it occurs. Gifts worth over say a few thousand dollars are illegal. If a justice is actually struggling to make ends meet, there should be provisions for that so he/she does not have to depend on rich donors for gifts/bribes, and they are bribes even if he/she recuses themselves. The taint is there and will not be easily ignored by participants in the case.
Ruth Sheets: Just to complicate things... gifts and friendships may not directly qualify as bribes i.e. may not be directly related to a pending case. BUT significant rulings (tax code, federal regulations, etc.) can benefit the oligarch now or in the future. Thus, the chummy conversations and donations may reward a pattern of favorable rulings. I’d like to see a ban on all gifts. And how about a ban on friendship with oligarchs?!?!
Marge, I am with you on the limiting of gifts. I am OK with the kinds of gifts family members and very close friends exchange. I am also OK with small employer/employee gifts, but that is it for public officials. Anything else looks like bribery, which it probably is. I think all gifts should still be reported, but they should be worth far lower amounts. As I have previously mentioned, if a justice is in difficult financial straits, there should be assistance through the government for that.
Ruth--In what reality is it against the law to give a gift to another person? Keep a record of all gifts given and received, if and when a decision is pending that might favor an individual who was a gift giver the justice who received said favors could be excused from taking part in the decision.
Donald, you know exactly what I am talking about. Those things Thomas, Alito, even Gorsuch were given were not really gifts whether they were reported or not. They were bribes, pure and simple. That IS illegal and should be whether reported or not. Gifts are what friends and family members exchange, sometimes employers and employees and employees and co-workers. Gifts are not what rich people give to judges and justices or candidates or members of Congress or state legislators. If those are eliminated in an ethics code, everyone will know where they stand.
Ruth--I hear what you are saying and I agree with you. There has to be some standard where everything beneath it goes by the boards but anything above it must be reported.
Donald many of us have jobs that prohibit accepting any gifts ( by written policy). It is not a law of the land, it is a policy. You are notified in advance that, if you accept a gift from the public, you can be terminated on the spot. When caught violating the policy you are terminated - simple. In the case of the SCOTUS justices should be prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone outside their immediate family. If/when caught termination should immediately occur - executed by the HR department, Chief Justice or whoever manages employment matters there. All we need is a policy. If prohibited from making such a policy we need term limits legislation to weed out the crap.
Max--I hear what you're saying and it has merit. I just find it hard to understand why gifts that have been declared can't be accepted on a marginal level, the type of gifts exchanged between family members. However, the term "extravagant" doesn't begin to describe Clarence Thomas and the gifts given by Crow. That is an issue which needs tending to.
Donald unfortunately the Supreme Court has abused our trust to the point that our trust no longer exists. I believe that to be true though I have not studied it and reviewed the literature to assert it as fact. I believe it because the evidence is overwhelming. Once a body destroys trust to this degree we cannot count on them to do the right thing going forward. We have to restrict them from continuing to abuse our trust. Like the legacy of a liar prohibits our belief in anything the former president Donald Trump says now or will ever say again. Since the Supreme Court is our third branch of government and a vital part of our checks and balances we are both dependent on its ethical behavior and restricted from legislating their ethical behavior. I believe the best answer is to enact legislation forbidding them from receiving any gifts at all, by policy - and charging the leadership with enforcing that decree. We may be constrained but I do not believe we are hog tied by the constitution.
Max--The problem of gifts is an issue that has no easy solution. It's an easy thing to say no but it's an almost impossible thing to enact. Middle of the road idea. Put a limit, monetarily, on how much a gift can be valued. We are a society of givers, how do we shut down a value that helps to define who we are as a people.
Well it hasn't happened as you hoped. Thomas is dirty and continues to accept extravagant gifts from operatives. His wife continues to hob nob with insurrectionists. Sometimes what you see is what you get. Since we cannot control the ethics standards or regulate the court it is time to ban all gifts. If they need jobs with gifts they can look for employment elsewhere.
Max--You puzzle me. What hasn't happened as I would have hoped? You seem to know me better than I know myself, I don't know who to feel more sorry for, you because of your all seeing eye or me for being so simple minded an abject stranger can ascertain what I'm thinking. Thomas and his wife are a disgrace, as a gift I give them both to you. Let's hope, in all your omnipotent wisdom you can find a decent place for them. Good luck, "What movie?"
You wrote: "DZK--You're taking for granted all gifts are bribes! I'm sure some are given in the same manner as you would give any friend a gift. But, if a gift is considered extravagant and over the top I would hope the justice given the gift would excuse himself or herself from rendering any decision relating to the individual giving the gift. That is in a perfect world." In reply to your expression of hope I replied that it hasn't happened as you hoped. By it I mean the Justice excusing himself or herself. Apologies for being too vague. I also read the rest of your comment and have nothing of value to say in response to it.
Max--First, let me apologize for the vacuous content of the post your referring to. Personal opinions can seem strange at times, basically because they are just feelings. If everything I wrote was in an effort to please you I wouldn't be me.
Both Thomas and Alito should have been investigated by DOJ for crimes like bribery and perjury long ago. There are times when DOJ has a conflict, but DOJ is not a party in every SCOTUS case, and where it is a party, a special prosecutor should have been named.
IMHO Thomas and Alito should have been asked, beginning many yeas ago to recuse themselves in many cases. However, the parties are cowards and rarely bring conflicts into question. . 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge, applies to justices:
,
(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
The decision whether a judge’s impartiality can “ ‘reasonably be questioned’ ” is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they were surmised or reported. See Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2000) (Rehnquist, C. J.) (opinion respecting recusal). To my knowledge, since the Scalia duck hunting incident in 2004, recusal has not been addressed in a single opinion. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-475.ZA.html
The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law).. There is no reason why DOJ cannot request a writ, ask for an opportunity to be heard before the court and commence discovery.
Daniel, thank you so much for that information. I have read those points before somewhere, but had forgotten that they apply to the SC too. I don't know why that has been ignored by our media except they have "reasons" perhaps to ignore it. The DOJ should know the law and should be stepping up. Maybe if they were to investigate, Thomas would just resign, which is what he should have done years ago when he first started taking regular bribes and not recusing himself. Alito wouldn't resign just to prove he is above all that and can do whatever he wants. There is so much bad behavior among the super 6 it is hard to know where to go with it. One guarantee, Roberts will do nothing to curb any of it, at least not publicly and what he does privately is pretty much irrelevant because it has resulted in little or nothing to stop the bad behavior.
Yes to all of the above. The Highest Court in the Land must have the highest ethical standards in the land. Justices who cannot understand the need for the highest ethical standards and abide by them should be forced to resign by Roberts, Congress, and public opinion. If the unethical Justices still refuse to resign/retire, the SCOTUS faces a Constitutional crisis. Perhaps the SCOTUS must vote the unethical Justices off the court.
While on the topic of unethical Justices who have secretly accepted gifts from people who have issues before the Court, let's take a moment to think about how J6 was possible.
Over time, has the SC allowed unethial "media" to spread lies? Has the SC confused "free speech" with unlimited spending by special interests? Yes.
In fact, when wealthy interests buy up a finite amount of prime time commercials during elections, it limits what other candidates can buy and say during prime time. In fact, large buys of wealthy special intests drive airtime prices up, thus limiting other candidates' speech.
The Supreme Court has protected the speech of corporate interests to the detriment of individuals and labor. The SCOTUS has allowed wealthy special interests to have disporportionate speech (airtime), while limiting others who cannot afford as much airtime. Sadly, often candidates cannot even afford to respond to the lies and distortions of the well funded corporate special interests.
When an angry armed group stormed the Capital to stop the peaceful transfer of power, and attempted a coup because they believed unethical media sources and individuals who had become comfortable with spouting hate speech and lies, did the SCOTUS wonder how people could believe the election was actually stolen with zero proof? Did they realize they enabled the fake news that drove the insurrectionists?
Indeed, many individuals are responsible for the J6 insurrection. However, has the Roberts' Court laid the ground work so that millions of people can be intentionally misinformed? Has near unlimited political spending driven people to insurrection because they had enough of the "rigged system," and desperately wanted a candidate who said he would "drain the swamp?" The swamp was, in fact, created by near unlimited lobbyist spending and influence made legal by the Supreme Court.
On January 6, while the huge fire was burning on the Capital steps across the street from the Supreme Court, I wonder if it occurred to Justices that unlimited political spending, and biased media mascarading as journalism, has created a real mess and eroded our Democracy. After hearing Alito's and Thomas' recent comments about their unethical actions, I doubt they get it. "Isn't that ironic?"
How can you trust Congress to pass anything? Half of the justices on the court should be impeached, removed, whatever or however it could happen, and get them the hell out of there!!! They are not for the people, they are for themselves .😡
"Checks and Balances" is a system that allows each branch of a government to amend or veto acts of another branch so as to prevent any one branch from having too much power. (From a quick search). Clearly this SCOTUS is out of balance and needs to be checked by Congress.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely". These 'justices' believe they are above the law, that is plain to see. They do not even pretend to care about fairness and ethics that other branches of government must abide by.
As disappointing and disgraceful as the conduct of Alito and Thomas has been, the cowardly lack of leadership from Roberts is even more so. The chief job of the Chief Justice, and of all the justices, is to resolve disputes. Yet, Roberts is afraid to touch a dispute bubbling up around him from among his own back benches. Doesn't want to get his hands dirty. Meanwhile, the integrity and respect of the Supreme Court crumbles beneath his feet, threatening to destroy the Court’s ability to address and settle all other disputes that come before it. The facts cry out for him to “Do something!” “Nope,” he replies. “I’d rather not.”
Let me see, now. It seems the DOJ is being weaponized, law enforcement is being weaponized, criminal justice is being weaponized, and now, judicial ethics is being weaponized.
It seems the law & order party are claiming law & order is being weaponized, right ‽
"Weaponized" is the latest "bumper sticker" word. I always wonder where these things suddenly come from. Did the Republicans hire a consulting firm to invent it since they have nothing worthwhile to talk about?
Supreme Court had numerous opportunities to establish their own Code of Ethics, which would have to some degree begun the process for building back public trust. Some thought themselves above the concerns of the very people they are sworn to protect, and for what can only be considered serving their own personal interests, broke widely accepted Codes of Ethics. So Congress must act, because the Supreme Court will not
To today's question I answered "other." Fact is, I expected Alito's move months ago, and - sad but true - I think he's right. I said as much here months ago, as well. On the other hand, a constitutional amendment should be able to shut that wanker Alito's trap right up, and such an amendment >may< find bi-partisan support - but probably not before Alito - and probably everyone else here - has been rotting in his damn grave for a long time.
I would hope that Supreme Court justices would have a greater sense of morality and precedent than they do. I expect a justice who knows the laws would follow them and have respect for them but obviously I am wrong! It is a shame we found out they are just like spoiled brats that think they can do whatever they want because they have a lifetime appointment and no constraints. Whatever happened to respect for the office and their honor?
I find the arrogance of both justices, who in fact are servants of the people, when being held accountable form their actions quite astonishing. They clearly see themselves as far above citizens, almost like royalty. Actually I am sure they feel they are above the law. Their behaviours are the same and Trump and his GOP MAGA elites and theybseem to be reenforcing each other. It is up to the people to hold them accountable now and have the elected legislators remove them from the Court . For this to happen the MAGA dominated GOP has to be outvoted big time in 2024.
Unfortunately, I do not find the arrogance of both justices “quite astonishing.” What I find astonishing is how deeply the monied interests have burrowed themselves into every aspect of American Democracy. To place our hopes on a future Democratic Congress and a simultaneous Democratic President is unrealistic. Right wing billionaires believe that “Everyone has their price” and now Thomas and Alioto are simply the most recent examples of those who can be bought. Democrats can be bought also and Joe Manchin is the most recent example of those who put money and ego ahead of democracy.
Marc, it is truly sad that we have permitted rich white individuals and corporations to buy so much of our government, economy, land, and media. There is truly not a balance here between "right" and "left," but no one working for the government should be taking anything from outside groups of any kind. If they don't like the low salaries, they should not be in Congress, on the Court, or serving in the White House. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and the other "conservative" justices who bought the lie that "money is speech" and that "corporations are persons" may not have taken money directly, but were bribed so that future cases could be ruled in favor of huge corporations and against people wanting voting or other rights because "too bad, money is speech and corporations should be able to "speak" as much as they like, even to buying elections. There was no provision, though for how corporations being persons would be treated if they committed crimes. A whole corporation can't be thrown into prison. The whole Citizens United case was BS and Roberts was right in the middle of it. How is he ever going to demand any kind of ethics code from the other justices, let alone himself. He does whine loudly that he has integrity, but there is actually little to no evidence of that. There is evidence, though of his misogyny, racism, and xenophobia.
There are also rich black, yellow, red and purple individuals and corps.
Wealthy class, period.
Agree.
Joe Manchin is not a Democrat. Only pretends that he might have been or might me sometime , he won’t , he’s too entrenched in the ‘ money’ is ‘ power’ cult.
Patricia, you are right about Manchin. He is his own party or at least one in a party of those who have conflicts of interest. He is voting on bills that directly impact his own business and cares nothing for what is needed or what the people of West Virginia want. He cares only for his own business and how to make it more profitable even though it involves burning fossil fuels which we know are destroying our planet. I suspect there are a lot of Republicans who are also in that conflict of interest party.
Ruth, those fossil fuels aren't destroying the planet, only the life on the planet, it is other living organisms for which Manchin has no regard. Like Trump he cares first, foremost, and always for Joe Manchin - screw the rest of living organisms. I apologize for being nit picky, Ruth, but the planet and even some of the life will live on after the catastrophic destruction. It may take billions of years to return to the status we have now. It would be nice if Trumps, MAGAs, Manchins. Sinemas. et al did not return in the distant future.
Manchin is what one calls a blue dog dem. My apologies to dogs everywhere.
What is a blue dog democrat?
A blue dog dem is a democrat in name only Exactly what Manchin is. He’s a democrat in a red district who votes more in his own interest or that of the opposing party. He’d be more honest were he an independent who caucused with republicans.
Oh, in other words, a fraud. I was under the impression that a blue dog democrat was one who believes in, and wants to do, what democrats desire, all the while watching the till like a hawk. So do all that is needed and paying for it without going into debt for those accomplishments. Thanks for the clarification.
In fact, Joe Manchin is everything his coal-producing constituents voted for him to be!
Agree.
I suspect (paranoid as I am) that those oligarchs not only have cash to dangle in front of anyone willing to vote for the interests of the billionaires. I suspect they also have thick files of research on every Republican (and a few Democrats) about their financial peccadilloes, sexual experiences, etc. etc. Carrots are out there, but so are the sticks.
I have come to believe that if a Republican is honest when elected, the cash and the files will overcome any moral reluctance to “Vote Oligarch” on Bills, nominations, etc.
You are right and the proof is named Elise Stephanik, formerly a normal person, turned into a Trumpian freak for power and money, now #3 in the house. Cynical? Sounds like it to me.
LIV golf and Jarrod Kushner deals with the Saudis are other examples of human greed taking precedence over ethics.
Marc Nevas ; I find it astonishingly unnerving as this corruption rapidly expands. I listened to an excerpt of a recent speech by President Biden, in which he was calling out the attacks from the MAGA party on newly elected opponents of theirs. The new judge in Wisconsin is being threatened already. We all know that Matt Gaetz is pressuring McCarthy to impeach President Biden. Fani Willis has been threatened by legislators who want to interfere with the prosecution that could deliver justice in her RICO case. Jack Smith is asking for a remedy to tfg's broadcasts on social media of threats and lies which could taint the jury. It seems that the terrorists have cowed law enforcement and intimidated the judge who strongly warned that he could see the inside of a cell. It has not happened , and it is obvious why. Tfg should be incommunicado in a cell right now. If he was virtually anyone else, he would be. Maybe an executive order could provide emergency funds for protection of judges and prosecutors, members of juries, too. Their lives and safety are more important than that of tfg, who enjoys lifetime secret service protection! Our Democracy and freedom is more important than his sorry ass!
I'd agree except that Joe Manchin is certainly NOT a Democrat. Not by any stretch of the most elastic imagination. He "claims" to be a Dem, but his actions and his votes proclaim him to be a DINO.
Marc, MONEY ! , ,,,, IS!, ,,,the ROOT !,, of { MOST ! } EVIL ! MANKIND ! , ,,,, WILL ALWAYS, Prove THAT ! ( * Darn ! * ) MAMMONITES !!!
When I worked for a government contractor, I was strictly prohibited from receiving ANY gifts from groups that I worked with! This same rule should apply to the SCOTUS. If they want gifts and to get rich, they can retire from the court and become a consultant/write a memoir.!
How correct you are, Tim. Not only did we have to sign agreements not to accept gifts we also had to sit through the same boring, lecture/film every year. The government employees we serviced also were warned accepting a gift as lowly as a cup of coffee from us could result in job loss for them.
Tim Baldwin ; Most people don't have the power of a Supreme court justice. That is why they are getting all these goodies. They can decide a case favorably for those who want to buy their way out of inconvenient 'jams'. Same thing with what used to be illegal for representatives in Congress and the Senate. Now we have Citizens United, and bribery is totally 'legal' ; just like not paying taxes, even if you are very wealthy.
I just came across this relevant piece that may be of interest:
https://youtu.be/YQbTLLelKmc?si=I4ENOSD_89sws0ql
Definitely of interest! Senator Whitehouse deserves an "Attaboy" for filing his ethics complaint, although I don't know how far it will go in today's Congress. Alito is suffering from a severe case of "foot in his mouth" disease!
DZK, this is definitely of interest. I’m glad you posted it.
Are you sure it's not "head up one's hindquarters" syndrome?
Sen. Whitehouse deserves praise for his ethics filing, detailed and cogent. I watched "The Last Word" with great pleasure, and I agree that unless the House goes blue this legal remedy can't succeed. The principle must remain viable, that the Supreme Court must be constrained by one or more of the other segments of government from arrogating too much power.
George M, In addition to the ethics code that is definitely needed for the SC justices, there needs to be a basic set of qualifications for being on the SC. It should require a significant amount of experience, no previous evidence of racism, misogyny, xenophobia, homo/transphobia, and other extreme biases. Then, some other rules would be helpful like, no precedent should be able to be overturned without a unanimous vote, that is if the precedent is 10 years or more. A strong reason, like new facts that would negate the earlier ruling would also work. The nonsense of getting a super majority so the court can reshape our lives to meet the desires of a few powerful unelected or political people is unacceptable. I know term limits would help too. This could be fixed if there were a will and people were helped to understand what is being done to them by a group of folks, several of whom have demonstrated a lack of integrity, even illegal behavior.
Membership in the Federalist Society is immediately disqualifying.
One would wish!
No kidding!
Hear here!!
Ruth I agree with a need for a basic set of qualifications, beyond age and citizenship, but I think it needs to be extended to all elected officials at any level of government. For instance. I truly believe that anyone running for any office should be required to display a working knowledge of the Constitution and the operation of Government. One of the more disgusting utterances of tommy tuberville was his inability to name the three branches of Government.
Fay, yes, and Tupperville is the fool who is trying to keep any military advancements from happening unless he can dictate to service women what they are allowed to do related to reproduction. He is an ignorant white guy who has no business being a representative of anything anywhere, but he is a state's Senator. That truly is disgusting, but what can one say, it's Alabama!
Agreed, Ruth, but tommy the tub, doesn't live in Alabama, he lives in Florida, according to reports. Apparently, Alabama is so desperate for the most stupid representation they can find they're willing to overlook the lack of residency. After all, he coached their football team, that should count for something. Jimboy jordan only coached wrestling
George M: You may be aware of the effort underway by Jerry Weiss (Feathers of Hope Substack) to remove Kevin McCarthy from his position as Speaker, by having the House call for "vacating the chair". There are several moderate Republicans who are qualified to fill that position and they are gathering momentum now.
As long as McCarthy remains a slave to the MAGA caucus any worthwhile legislation is not forthcoming.
When we see and hear from elected officials like Senator Whitehouse it give me hope that we, our government and country, will manage to get this issue and other problems solved. Thanks for posting the link.
MJ- Are you familiar with Sen Whitehouse's 22 part You Tube videos called "The Scheme" If not, I suggest you find it and watch it. It's a take down of what's being done by the judiciary. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhyg5hj7I21i1Aqcaym9TRFrpWjPN9_ms
Great - thanks!!
Thanks, DZK ; This is the interview I was describing in my recent post above. I guess it's called 'eating cake'. They "cannot opine about that which may come before them'. How convenient!
But Hans, hadn't you heard? All men are created equal but some are created more equal than others.
Michael, In Your reply, ...to Hans, I Agree, in Jest, That it is So True ! The *KING OF THE MOUNTAIN , Game*, ... is just Gonna' be " The BAND, PLAYED ON ! ,,,,,,, Untill, Our LORD/GOD, ,,,,RETURNS ! ( Some of, a certain party, of MANKIND ! , Aspire, to be ,,,,,,,,, EQUAL ! .... to GOD !! ) LORD ! , have MERCY !
Not a laugh button. Lol
Hans Flikkema ; They seem to feel entitled, for sure.
HANS !, as it is WRETTEN ,,,,,,Of, The PEOPLE, ,,,BY, The People, AND ! , ,,,,FOR !, The PEOPLE ,,, A BIG, Fat , AMEN !!
Hans Flikema : and then Marc Nevas ... I think both of you are correct in offering a “piece” of what I believe is time honored and remarkably “fixed” set of assumptions in this country, i.e. the cluster of assumptions/entitlements that are a gift to White Men as babies, and only grow “more so” as they grow up ... or not as the case might be. White men in this country, and in the countries from which our ancestors emigrated ... to settle here. We need to remember that it wasn’t so very long ago that only white men 100 acres of land were entitled to vote. enjoyed centuries of Privilege. And think about that for a moment. Only white men were entitled to write the laws under which all others would live. This country ... and certainly many others ... have long elevated men over women, and also deliberately subjugated women to men through a complex web of law, economics & social pressure.
And we add considerable intelligence in both Roberts & Alito, and the Droit de Seigneur mindset is not entirely surprising. Obnoxious & unacceptable ... but not altogether surprising. And honestly, this “we are the ones who are entitled by virtue of birthright to make the rules that all others must follow bleeds over in some areas in which we were surprised by the results. I would assert that the entire fight over a woman’s right to maintain control over her own body ... is an offshoot of how white men assume should be her role, position & limited entitlement.
What gives me the most hope is the rather remarkable difference between how 40+ white men and 15 year old white boys see both power & entitlement. In one sense, women need to have the fight for equality now, and we need to win that fight ... both for ourselves & our daughters, and for anyone who didn’t happen to be born “A White Man.” And we need to win because of all the issues we already recognize - the Patriarchy, the Racism & the subjugation of any human being who doesn’t happen to be “White” & “Male”
But ironically, we also need to win that fight for our white sons & our white husbands & lovers. And that’s because with “Privilege” also comes the burden of leadership - all too often handed to those who are least qualified to lead. We will all benefit from a time, a country & a society in which each of us is allowed to assume a role to which we are qualified by virtue of our talents, and in which we are most comfortable by virtue of our nature.
Agreed Hans!
John Roberts won't insist because he is likely compromised himself, or vulnerable. The court won't approve it because 6 of them are conservative and unlikely to admit any of them did anything wrong. I am not even sure the three "liberals" would do it. So that leaves congress passing a law, which won't happen if congress is split between the parties. Democrats will vote for it, Republicans won't because it is "their" justices caught with hands in the till. So it comes down to voters. Is it enough of an issue to sway voters one way or the other? Likely not, but if tied to issues like abortion, freedom of the press, and voting rights it just might have some impact. We have to change the make-up of congress before ethics demands will pass.
OK. Congress passes a law binding SCOTUS to an ethics standard, whereupon corrupt SCOTUS justices' "financial aid" rallies to bring a lawsuit against the legislation, where it is appealed up to the SCOTUS, where it's struck down as unconstitutional. Like it or not, >that's< the play. >That's< Alito's thinking. It doesn't take a Juris PhD or a constitutional scholar to figure out.
DZK ; 'Congress' as it stands now, is compromised by gerrymander, and George Santos is the tip of the iceberg of corruption. How many others are illegitimate, installed by dirty money and equally unethical political maneuvering?
Laurie, AGAIN !, so True ! * DIRTBAG !, MAMMONITES !! *
True enough. I was speaking optimistically on such legislation even getting through committee, let alone being brought to the floor for a vote.
DZK ; I know what you mean. Ideally, that is how it should work.
DZK, you are right, but that does not mean it should not be done. It could keep going around, but in the meantime, it would be law until the SC declared it not. If our media could be gotten on board, people would start to see what kind of justices have been forced on us as a people and start to ignore their rulings as Alabama and other states already have. We don't want that, so I am thinking the justices will ultimately surrender. Already, their approval ratings are really low and it is their own fault. No one did that to them.
Wayne, While I subscribe to every element of your argument, I would revise the last sentence to read, “We have to change the make-up of Congress to reform and re-balance the Court by expanding it.” I would add that Reich, in previous newsletters, in my view, has advanced unimpeachable justifications for expanding both the High Court and the lower federal courts.
Expansion might be necessary simply to distribute the workload, but expansion is a short term fix. A republican president could appoint "like minded" judges and the court would revert to conservatism in a few years. Changing the attitude of voters is really key. What do "we the people" really want? Then these desires move the political parties to reflect it. Short term fixes won't correct the court or heal the planet "forever", though it might help in the short term as long as progressives can keep a political majority. I do support term limits for the courts, including the Supreme Court.
Roberts is right there for the evil Citizens United.
Spot on
The choices are not fully visible so I will say only that, yes, the people demand that the Supreme Court abide by the same ethics rules as all other federal judges and government officials. It just isn’t reasonable that they should be above having an ethics standard applied to their conduct. Who do they think they are, royalty? They hold high office and need to live up to their obligations to their fellow citizens. If they don’t get that they aren’t fit to serve.
Mary, alas, you are right that if the justices have a problem with an ethics code that matches the requirements of other judges, they are not fit to serve. They are not royalty or above the law, although they act as though they are, at least the super 6 do. They forgot they were only elected because they were willing to be pawns for The Federalist Society and they have proven themselves quite good in that role. That is rather funny, though, royalty that are really pawns.
Mary !, ,,,,, I SO AGREE ! AMEN ! , BLESSINGS !, to You!, & Family !
So could this be put on the ballot in every state and all of us citizens vote on it?We should have a say in this,those rulings they pass judgement on affect every one of us.
I also believe that there needs to be term limits for SCOTUS justices,and stricter rules about how anyone gets put on the bench.For instance,no more foolishness like what tfg did with Amy Coney Barrett!I don't care what anyone says,that crap was unethical!!!And also what happened with Obama's pick,Merrick Garland, being all but ignored,what the hell was that?Nobody should EVER be able to make,let alone enforce,that kind of decision!
For definite certain there needs to be heavy duty changes.How the bloody hell are they above the law and untouchable?That's a load of straight up hooey!
We also need to be able to impose term limits on Congress,no one should be allowed to be repeatedly reelected for years on end.People like Mitch McConnell should have been out of office decades ago.(I also believe he is having low blood sugar episodes,some people could be hypoglycemic without being diabetic.It can make a person seem disoriented and mimic a seizure.)
And we have a problem with several Congresscritters too far past their prime with chronic illnesses that refuse to just step away and let someone else be elected in their place.
Until we find a way to solve these issues,the people who are in SCOTUS and Congress will continue to work for the highest bidders and to Hell with the rest of us.(How about Publicly funded elections,anyone?No more obscenely wealthy people buying our public servants for their personal use!)
Just food for thought, y'all!!
COMM'ON Mallissa ! , TELL IT !! , as IT IS !!
It doesn't matter how the judges feel about being placed under scrutiny when it comes to declaring gifts and groutites given to them by private concerns. The integrity of the court is at stake. The only reasons why the current members of the Supreme Court wouldn't want to be treated like all the other elected officials when it comes to declaring special considerations from outside individuals or originations gives cause for concern. Its a healthy idea to enact provisions that would force the members of the Supreme Court to divulge any and all gifts from anywhere. Those who wear the "Robs" should have no problem with personal honesty.
I agree with Robert Reich that all gifts to the SCOTUS should be banned, not just disclosed. On the other hand, a Supreme Court Justice should be able to afford an expensive vacation every few years. Maybe their salaries should be increased. Robert's and Thomas' wives deserve to be investigated and a Congressional ethics law should be passed that includes spouses.
Gloria--The justices currently earn around $300,000.00 a year. Plenty of money to take a nice vacation every so often, I would think. As for gifts, there is nothing wrong with someone giving a gift to a justice, it just has to be declarer. The same as everyone else.
Donald, I didn't know what SC justices earned and they only work 9 months of the year. People complain about teachers having time off and teachers work at least as hard as the justices do and earn less than a third of what the justices do. I do not agree about the gift thing. There is no reason anyone has to give a judge or justice any gift, except family members and close friends for birthdays, holidays, and other big family events. No millionaire should be donating to any officials. If they want to donate, there are thousands of needy organizations they can give to that would really appreciate the gift and no one's integrity would be at risk.
Ruth--Justices a still people. If by chance an acquaintance gave a gift, for what ever reason, to a justice that's a perfectly normal thing. All that is needed is for the justice to declare it. Any and all elected officials in our government must do that currently. The Justices aren't elected I'll give in to that but they should still bend to the same scrutiny as everyone else.
Donald, an acquaintance gift is not worth a couple hundred thousand dollars; it just isn't. I don't know, but a tie or hat or book are acquaintance gifts and of course should be reported. An RV is not. Neither are flights on private jets for vacations. Those are bribes, whether reported or not!
Ruth--OK you win. Point taken. How do we initiate such a plan? It probably would have to come through Congress.
So you think >bribery< is legitimate, as long as the one being bribed admits and declares it? Please forgive my ham-fisted question. You may not agree it's bribery. Please explain.
DZK--You're taking for granted all gifts are bribes! I'm sure some are given in the same manner as you would give any friend a gift. But, if a gift is considered extravagant and over the top I would hope the justice given the gift would excuse himself or herself from rendering any decision relating to the individual giving the gift. That is in a perfect world.
For those of us who do not hold the destiny of a nation, or even a state or local government in our hands, that may seem reasonable. SCOTUS justices and other high-ranking government officials are not among that number - and shouldn't be considered to be. >That's< the deal! >That's< the trade-off. That's why ethics codes exist in all branches, bureaus, and departments associated with the federal government, in particular. Only the SCOTUS seems to allow themselves "gifts" of any kind. Strictly speaking, even if the president himself, or even a State Department official accepts a gift from a foreign leader through diplomacy, that gift becomes the property of the US Government. Only the SCOTUS holds itself above those concerns of "common" people. Quid-pro-quo gifting is particularly suspect. It looks like a quite lot of quid-pro-quo-in's a'goin' on with the SCOTUS.
DZK--As things exist now I agree there is a high degree of uncertainty relating to an individual's honesty. Justices are human and as such are subject to all sorts of human frailties. Corruption on any level is unacceptable, even "Supremely Speaking."
As a further thought, if you think about it for a moment, that's what's so perplexing about how ol' P01135809 is being given such "kid glove" treatment. Look at what happened to his Proud Boy leader. I mean, why is there even doubt with >anyone< about how ol' P01135809 should be "disposed of," when if anything, he should be treated far worse! It's >exactly< the same issue wearing a different face!
DZK--There is a slight difference between the leader of the Proud Boys and Trump. The latter received 75,000,000 votes from our fellow Americans in the last Presidential election. How do we punish an individual with that kind of following without pissing off 75,000,000 Americans.
👍
DZK--That thumb could be bigger. LOL
Donald, how about just keeping the temptation from the justices' door and saying that such gifts are illegal. That would make the crime of bribery clearer when it occurs. Gifts worth over say a few thousand dollars are illegal. If a justice is actually struggling to make ends meet, there should be provisions for that so he/she does not have to depend on rich donors for gifts/bribes, and they are bribes even if he/she recuses themselves. The taint is there and will not be easily ignored by participants in the case.
Ruth Sheets: Just to complicate things... gifts and friendships may not directly qualify as bribes i.e. may not be directly related to a pending case. BUT significant rulings (tax code, federal regulations, etc.) can benefit the oligarch now or in the future. Thus, the chummy conversations and donations may reward a pattern of favorable rulings. I’d like to see a ban on all gifts. And how about a ban on friendship with oligarchs?!?!
Marge, I am with you on the limiting of gifts. I am OK with the kinds of gifts family members and very close friends exchange. I am also OK with small employer/employee gifts, but that is it for public officials. Anything else looks like bribery, which it probably is. I think all gifts should still be reported, but they should be worth far lower amounts. As I have previously mentioned, if a justice is in difficult financial straits, there should be assistance through the government for that.
Ruth--In what reality is it against the law to give a gift to another person? Keep a record of all gifts given and received, if and when a decision is pending that might favor an individual who was a gift giver the justice who received said favors could be excused from taking part in the decision.
Donald, you know exactly what I am talking about. Those things Thomas, Alito, even Gorsuch were given were not really gifts whether they were reported or not. They were bribes, pure and simple. That IS illegal and should be whether reported or not. Gifts are what friends and family members exchange, sometimes employers and employees and employees and co-workers. Gifts are not what rich people give to judges and justices or candidates or members of Congress or state legislators. If those are eliminated in an ethics code, everyone will know where they stand.
Ruth--I hear what you are saying and I agree with you. There has to be some standard where everything beneath it goes by the boards but anything above it must be reported.
Donald many of us have jobs that prohibit accepting any gifts ( by written policy). It is not a law of the land, it is a policy. You are notified in advance that, if you accept a gift from the public, you can be terminated on the spot. When caught violating the policy you are terminated - simple. In the case of the SCOTUS justices should be prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone outside their immediate family. If/when caught termination should immediately occur - executed by the HR department, Chief Justice or whoever manages employment matters there. All we need is a policy. If prohibited from making such a policy we need term limits legislation to weed out the crap.
Max--I hear what you're saying and it has merit. I just find it hard to understand why gifts that have been declared can't be accepted on a marginal level, the type of gifts exchanged between family members. However, the term "extravagant" doesn't begin to describe Clarence Thomas and the gifts given by Crow. That is an issue which needs tending to.
Donald unfortunately the Supreme Court has abused our trust to the point that our trust no longer exists. I believe that to be true though I have not studied it and reviewed the literature to assert it as fact. I believe it because the evidence is overwhelming. Once a body destroys trust to this degree we cannot count on them to do the right thing going forward. We have to restrict them from continuing to abuse our trust. Like the legacy of a liar prohibits our belief in anything the former president Donald Trump says now or will ever say again. Since the Supreme Court is our third branch of government and a vital part of our checks and balances we are both dependent on its ethical behavior and restricted from legislating their ethical behavior. I believe the best answer is to enact legislation forbidding them from receiving any gifts at all, by policy - and charging the leadership with enforcing that decree. We may be constrained but I do not believe we are hog tied by the constitution.
Max--The problem of gifts is an issue that has no easy solution. It's an easy thing to say no but it's an almost impossible thing to enact. Middle of the road idea. Put a limit, monetarily, on how much a gift can be valued. We are a society of givers, how do we shut down a value that helps to define who we are as a people.
Well it hasn't happened as you hoped. Thomas is dirty and continues to accept extravagant gifts from operatives. His wife continues to hob nob with insurrectionists. Sometimes what you see is what you get. Since we cannot control the ethics standards or regulate the court it is time to ban all gifts. If they need jobs with gifts they can look for employment elsewhere.
Max--You puzzle me. What hasn't happened as I would have hoped? You seem to know me better than I know myself, I don't know who to feel more sorry for, you because of your all seeing eye or me for being so simple minded an abject stranger can ascertain what I'm thinking. Thomas and his wife are a disgrace, as a gift I give them both to you. Let's hope, in all your omnipotent wisdom you can find a decent place for them. Good luck, "What movie?"
You wrote: "DZK--You're taking for granted all gifts are bribes! I'm sure some are given in the same manner as you would give any friend a gift. But, if a gift is considered extravagant and over the top I would hope the justice given the gift would excuse himself or herself from rendering any decision relating to the individual giving the gift. That is in a perfect world." In reply to your expression of hope I replied that it hasn't happened as you hoped. By it I mean the Justice excusing himself or herself. Apologies for being too vague. I also read the rest of your comment and have nothing of value to say in response to it.
Max--First, let me apologize for the vacuous content of the post your referring to. Personal opinions can seem strange at times, basically because they are just feelings. If everything I wrote was in an effort to please you I wouldn't be me.
Both Thomas and Alito should have been investigated by DOJ for crimes like bribery and perjury long ago. There are times when DOJ has a conflict, but DOJ is not a party in every SCOTUS case, and where it is a party, a special prosecutor should have been named.
The current judicial code should apply to SCOTUS. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/governance-judicial-conference
IMHO Thomas and Alito should have been asked, beginning many yeas ago to recuse themselves in many cases. However, the parties are cowards and rarely bring conflicts into question. . 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge, applies to justices:
,
(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
The decision whether a judge’s impartiality can “ ‘reasonably be questioned’ ” is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they were surmised or reported. See Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2000) (Rehnquist, C. J.) (opinion respecting recusal). To my knowledge, since the Scalia duck hunting incident in 2004, recusal has not been addressed in a single opinion. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-475.ZA.html
The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law).. There is no reason why DOJ cannot request a writ, ask for an opportunity to be heard before the court and commence discovery.
Daniel, thank you so much for that information. I have read those points before somewhere, but had forgotten that they apply to the SC too. I don't know why that has been ignored by our media except they have "reasons" perhaps to ignore it. The DOJ should know the law and should be stepping up. Maybe if they were to investigate, Thomas would just resign, which is what he should have done years ago when he first started taking regular bribes and not recusing himself. Alito wouldn't resign just to prove he is above all that and can do whatever he wants. There is so much bad behavior among the super 6 it is hard to know where to go with it. One guarantee, Roberts will do nothing to curb any of it, at least not publicly and what he does privately is pretty much irrelevant because it has resulted in little or nothing to stop the bad behavior.
Yes to all of the above. The Highest Court in the Land must have the highest ethical standards in the land. Justices who cannot understand the need for the highest ethical standards and abide by them should be forced to resign by Roberts, Congress, and public opinion. If the unethical Justices still refuse to resign/retire, the SCOTUS faces a Constitutional crisis. Perhaps the SCOTUS must vote the unethical Justices off the court.
While on the topic of unethical Justices who have secretly accepted gifts from people who have issues before the Court, let's take a moment to think about how J6 was possible.
Over time, has the SC allowed unethial "media" to spread lies? Has the SC confused "free speech" with unlimited spending by special interests? Yes.
In fact, when wealthy interests buy up a finite amount of prime time commercials during elections, it limits what other candidates can buy and say during prime time. In fact, large buys of wealthy special intests drive airtime prices up, thus limiting other candidates' speech.
The Supreme Court has protected the speech of corporate interests to the detriment of individuals and labor. The SCOTUS has allowed wealthy special interests to have disporportionate speech (airtime), while limiting others who cannot afford as much airtime. Sadly, often candidates cannot even afford to respond to the lies and distortions of the well funded corporate special interests.
When an angry armed group stormed the Capital to stop the peaceful transfer of power, and attempted a coup because they believed unethical media sources and individuals who had become comfortable with spouting hate speech and lies, did the SCOTUS wonder how people could believe the election was actually stolen with zero proof? Did they realize they enabled the fake news that drove the insurrectionists?
Indeed, many individuals are responsible for the J6 insurrection. However, has the Roberts' Court laid the ground work so that millions of people can be intentionally misinformed? Has near unlimited political spending driven people to insurrection because they had enough of the "rigged system," and desperately wanted a candidate who said he would "drain the swamp?" The swamp was, in fact, created by near unlimited lobbyist spending and influence made legal by the Supreme Court.
On January 6, while the huge fire was burning on the Capital steps across the street from the Supreme Court, I wonder if it occurred to Justices that unlimited political spending, and biased media mascarading as journalism, has created a real mess and eroded our Democracy. After hearing Alito's and Thomas' recent comments about their unethical actions, I doubt they get it. "Isn't that ironic?"
How can you trust Congress to pass anything? Half of the justices on the court should be impeached, removed, whatever or however it could happen, and get them the hell out of there!!! They are not for the people, they are for themselves .😡
It will take….. All Of The Above.
Add collateral arrack. E,G, The conduct of Ginny Thomas could be imputed to her husband,
All have a bar license to protect. Roberts; wife does also. Can get discovery.
"Checks and Balances" is a system that allows each branch of a government to amend or veto acts of another branch so as to prevent any one branch from having too much power. (From a quick search). Clearly this SCOTUS is out of balance and needs to be checked by Congress.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely". These 'justices' believe they are above the law, that is plain to see. They do not even pretend to care about fairness and ethics that other branches of government must abide by.
As disappointing and disgraceful as the conduct of Alito and Thomas has been, the cowardly lack of leadership from Roberts is even more so. The chief job of the Chief Justice, and of all the justices, is to resolve disputes. Yet, Roberts is afraid to touch a dispute bubbling up around him from among his own back benches. Doesn't want to get his hands dirty. Meanwhile, the integrity and respect of the Supreme Court crumbles beneath his feet, threatening to destroy the Court’s ability to address and settle all other disputes that come before it. The facts cry out for him to “Do something!” “Nope,” he replies. “I’d rather not.”
Buddy Luepke, very good summary!
Let me see, now. It seems the DOJ is being weaponized, law enforcement is being weaponized, criminal justice is being weaponized, and now, judicial ethics is being weaponized.
It seems the law & order party are claiming law & order is being weaponized, right ‽
"Weaponized" is the latest "bumper sticker" word. I always wonder where these things suddenly come from. Did the Republicans hire a consulting firm to invent it since they have nothing worthwhile to talk about?
Tim ! , their LATEST * sticker ! * , should State: UZI, Does IT ! ( HAH !! )
DZK ! Don't IT ALL "lOOK LIKE !, " , a Bunch O OVER-HEATED AR-15s, ,,,,, and ,,,, AK - 47s ??, !! ( Our LORD/GOD !, HAVE MERCY !! )
Supreme Court had numerous opportunities to establish their own Code of Ethics, which would have to some degree begun the process for building back public trust. Some thought themselves above the concerns of the very people they are sworn to protect, and for what can only be considered serving their own personal interests, broke widely accepted Codes of Ethics. So Congress must act, because the Supreme Court will not
To today's question I answered "other." Fact is, I expected Alito's move months ago, and - sad but true - I think he's right. I said as much here months ago, as well. On the other hand, a constitutional amendment should be able to shut that wanker Alito's trap right up, and such an amendment >may< find bi-partisan support - but probably not before Alito - and probably everyone else here - has been rotting in his damn grave for a long time.
ALL ! , Because of The Supreme MANGOWANKER !! , & CLOWN SHOW !
I would hope that Supreme Court justices would have a greater sense of morality and precedent than they do. I expect a justice who knows the laws would follow them and have respect for them but obviously I am wrong! It is a shame we found out they are just like spoiled brats that think they can do whatever they want because they have a lifetime appointment and no constraints. Whatever happened to respect for the office and their honor?
NANCY ! , ,,,, do NOT ! , HOLD, ,,,,Your BREATH !!