All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

For themsleves, for the SCOTUS they are going to need the 2/3's vote and then 3/4's of the states.

 

Except the Constitutuion requires there be a SCOTUS and requires the Congress to properly fund the required functions of the government. I doubt they want to get into that kind of pissing match with the SCOTUS.

 

There are absolutely no independent ethics rules for the president or any member of congress. And no mechanism for reigning in congress or the president when some committee views their actions abusive or bogus. Don't I wish!!! Not actually because I am a strict constitutionalist.

 

Try again: Please paste up something from the COTUS that says that the SCOTUS cannot declare such an obvious attack on separation of powers unconstitutional.

 

In respect and thought out response to RodB, in post: 1074189665, because I do think something can be done about Thomas,constitutionally.

Rod B with utmost respect in my opinion the thread is not about police at all. It is about Supreme Court Justices policing themselves. It is about their voluntary willingness to hold themselves accountable at all times for their behaviour and hot hiding it as Thomas did with repeated failures to disclose his dealings.

It is about whether Supreme Court Justices should voluntarily bind themselvesto the same code of ethics that all other federal court judges, all Judges, all lawyers, all police are mandated by law to follow.

I and others have been stating a Supreme Court Justice should not have to be told by anyone ever that:
1- receiving personal benefits from "friends" while in office;
2-refusing to disclose specific business deals with those "same friends";
3-having a wife receive a cash donation than a job with income by that same "friend";
4- having theiur grand nephew's education fees to a private school paid by that same "friend";
5-having this "friend" by this Judge's mother's home;
6-meeting repeatedly at social gatherings with this friend' business executives allies;
7-refusing as required by law to complete and provide information on specific legal forms:
are a blatant series of ethical transgressions that promote the appearance of bias, in some cases where he refused to recuse himself from certain trials and continues to refuse to do so:
a-compromises the integrity of the Supreme Court of Justice by creating a double standard, i.e., saying he will not follow the same standards as every other judge, lawyer and police officer in the US;
b-deliberately ignored the request of his Chief Justice to voluntarily follow the rules of ethics all other federal Judges by law must follow.

So I summarize, this is not about police powers. It is about Judges policing themselves and avoiding any behaviour that appears to compromise their neutrality. Thomas has refused to do that.

By the way his refusal to disclose his conflicts had to be flushed out by voluntary citizen groups NOT police.

Let us also make this clear. The majority of Supreme Court Justices voluntarily follow the code of ethics Chief Roberts asked them to and have no problem being accountable for their behaviour. If a law was passed creating a legally mandatory code of ethics for them to follow they would have no choice but to follow it for the same reason all other Judges, police, lawyers do. Its not unconstitutional to create rules about not placing yourself in a position of compromising your appearance of neutrality.

This has nothing to do with Thomas' skin colour or conservative ideology. It has to do with any Judge including him receiving benefits and gifts from the public, from anyone, period. It also specifically has to do with he himself deciding to deliberately refuse to disclose what he was doing not once, but repeatedly until he was exposed by two volunteer citizen groups.

The nine justices of the Supreme Court are the only federal judges not bound by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, which goes beyond the basic ethics laws enacted after Watergate and creates uniformity around thorny issues like recusals and participation in political activities.

This happened because Congress gave them the professional courtesy being the highest court of the land to police themselves as they were the highest court of the land upholding and enforcing this very code of ethics legally against all other Judges, lawyers and police. No one ever assumed a Supreme Court of Justice of the US would violate that code of ethics.

On March 12, 1804 The House voted to impeach Supreme Court of the US Judge Samuel Chase on March 12, 1804, accusing Chase of refusing to dismiss biased jurors and of excluding or limiting defense witnesses in two politically sensitive cases. As you know, that case had NOTHING to do with a Judge receiving personal benefits or placing himself in a positional of compromise but was in fact unlike the Thomas issues, political and so the impeachment was acquitted. I get a on-going politicians should not be able to interfere with an on-going Judge's proceeding in a trial for constitutional reasons as well as the basic fundamental principle of democracy of preventing Judges from being politicly interfered with. Remind Jimmy Jordan and Donny of that wil you?)
see:

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-chase.htm#:~:text=With at least six Jeffersonian,Samuel Chase on all counts.

Section 1 of Article 3 of the Constitution says:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

The above is what allows removal from office a Supreme Court Judge and there is direct precedent for removing a Supreme Court of the US Justice for receiving financial benefits: REPUBLICANS threatened impeachment proceeding that then led to the resignation of Justice Abe Fortas a Democrat appointment who voluntarily resigned for taking $20,000 a year for life from the family of a Wall Street titan in jail for SEC violations.

Now this same Republican party on far larger financial payments scandalw ith Thomas remains silent. Why? How does the Chief Justice who asked all 9 Judges to voluntarily follow the code stay silent and refuse to attend a Congressional hearing to discuss why he has remained silent?

The bottom line-this blatant set of ethical violations defended by partisan Republicans trying to claim its persecution against a black man for being Conservative now force the hand of Congress and the people of the US to demand a law be passed requiring the Supreme Court of the US Justices be legally mandated to follow the code of ethics of all other Judges. T

To remove the problem of not having a court to refer such violations to, a special tribunal could be created of Law Professors, Retired Supreme Court and Federal Judges, distinguished lawyers who have practiced ethical law and Ethics Professors to decide in a binding tribunal whether certain behaviour is unethical and requires a reprimand, a cease and desist advisory, request recusal from a specific case and in rare circumstances permanent removal.

It has come to that because it is a sorry day indeed when Republican partisans hijack the state of ethics of the highest court in the land.

This is the issue:

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/24/1171...ghts-double-standard-for-ethics-in-government

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justi...ty-How-Thomas-scandal-threatens-Supreme-Court
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-w...thomas-proves-justices-cant-police-themselves

 

The only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805. The House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment against him; however, he was acquitted by the Senate.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/... Justice ever been,Justices are on the Court?


We do have precedence, here. The powers of impeachment for SCOTUS resemble the process for POTUS.

 

Gonna need a cite there

 

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-...lsKukoljjL3DqwHneKnf4KZaMS5AV2z0aAtSTEALw_wcB
Art III, Sec 1.

Congress can create inferior courts. Congress does not create the SCOTUS, ergo it does not rule the SCOTUS.
Impeachment by the Senate can apply, however.

If you'd like to change how that works, see Article V.

 

I read your Snip with, presumedly, his best arguments-- and two of the three, as I noted, had nothing at all, to do with any "constitutional issue." So why would I need to "watch his entire statement?" Is there some reason, you've not explained, why we should consider every word out of this person's mouth, to be more important than every other legal opinion?

That is incorrect. Your argument only proves that you don't have a basic understanding of the matter. Binding ethics rules, are statutory; i.e., are LAWS. The ONLY body, Constitutionally invested with the power to make laws-- and so compulsory, ethics rules-- is the Congress. Therefore, the reason that they would be drafting the rules, would be as a matter of Constitutional necessity. It should be stressed, that this alternative, is in lieu of the Court establishing its own, mandatory, ethics standards.

The option of the Highest Court in the land, adhering to no ethical standards, other than each Justice's own discretion, is completely unacceptable; and the framers of our Constitution, clearly intended no such impunity, for the Supreme Court.

How could anyone believe that the Honorable Justice Thomas would ever allow his impartiality to be compromised? LOL!

BREAKING NEWS-- Harlon Crow is now being reported to have paid private school TUITION, for one of Thomas's children!

But why would anyone think that they would need report such a thing? That is obviously nothing but a small, token gift, from a close friend. To think-- some "news" outfits are so partisan, that they would pretend that any of Justice Thomas's financial arrangements, are not totally beyond reproach!

 

Yours, is a toothless argument, unless you can support that this one, former Deputy Attorney General's opinion, aligns with the vast majority of the views of every OTHER living, former Deputy Attorney General and, even better, with the opinions of former ACTUAL Attorney Generals.

On that score, your point is already a loser. You are pointing to the opinion of one, fmr. Deputy AG. But former AG Eric Holder (not just a "Deputy") believes the opposite; namely, that the SCOTUS need abide by firm ethics rules--

unless, in your book, a Republican Deputy AG, counts for more than a Democratic, full Attorney General?

 

You are badly misinformed, on the subject.

https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/ethicsrules



If it were possible, you are even more off-base, when it comes to the President, because one of Biden's first acts, as President, was to sign an order, requiring all Executive branch members to sign a pledge, to which they are contractually-- that is, legally-- obligated, which added to the statutory restrictions, to which they all, already, were subject.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...cs-commitments-by-executive-branch-personnel/

<Snip>
JANUARY 20, 2021
Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel

PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and sections 3301 and 7301 of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Ethics Pledge. Every appointee in every executive agency appointed on or after January 20, 2021, shall sign, and upon signing shall be contractually committed to, the following pledge upon becoming an appointee:

“I recognize that this pledge is part of a broader ethics in government plan designed to restore and maintain public trust in government, and I commit myself to conduct consistent with that plan. I commit to decision-making on the merits and exclusively in the public interest, without regard to private gain or personal benefit. I commit to conduct that upholds the independence of law enforcement and precludes improper interference with investigative or prosecutorial decisions of the Department of Justice. I commit to ethical choices of post-Government employment that do not raise the appearance that I have used my Government service for private gain, including by using confidential information acquired and relationships established for the benefit of future clients.

“Accordingly, as a condition, and in consideration, of my employment in the United States Government in a position invested with the public trust, I commit myself to the following obligations, which I understand are binding on me and are enforceable under law:

“1. Lobbyist Gift Ban. I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee.

“2. Revolving Door Ban — All Appointees Entering Government. I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.

“3. Revolving Door Ban — Lobbyists and Registered Agents Entering Government. If I was registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, 2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., or the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), 22 U.S.C. 611 et seq., within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:

(a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied, or engaged in registrable activity under FARA, within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;

(b) participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls; or

(c) seek or accept employment with any executive agency with respect to which I lobbied, or engaged in registrable activity under FARA, within the 2 years before the date of my appointment.

“4. Revolving Door Ban — Appointees Leaving Government. If, upon my departure from the Government, I am covered by the post-employment restrictions on communicating with employees of my former executive agency set forth in section 207(c) of title 18, United States Code, and its implementing regulations, I agree that I will abide by those restrictions for a period of 2 years following the end of my appointment. I will abide by these same restrictions with respect to communicating with the senior White House staff.

“5. Revolving Door Ban — Senior and Very Senior Appointees Leaving Government. If, upon my departure from the Government, I am covered by the post-employment restrictions set forth in sections 207(c) or 207(d) of title 18, United States Code, and those sections’ implementing regulations, I agree that, in addition, for a period of 1 year following the end of my appointment, I will not materially assist others in making communications or appearances that I am prohibited from undertaking myself by (a) holding myself out as being available to engage in lobbying activities in support of any such communications or appearances; or (b) engaging in any such lobbying activities.

“6. Revolving Door Ban — Appointees Leaving Government to Lobby. In addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 4, I also agree, upon leaving Government service, not to lobby any covered executive branch official or non-career Senior Executive Service appointee, or engage in any activity on behalf of any foreign government or foreign political party which, were it undertaken on January 20, 2021, would require that I register under FARA, for the remainder of the Administration or 2 years following the end of my appointment, whichever is later.

“7. Golden Parachute Ban. I have not accepted and will not accept, including after entering Government, any salary or other cash payment from my former employer the eligibility for and payment of which is limited to individuals accepting a position in the United States Government. I also have not accepted and will not accept any non-cash benefit from my former employer that is provided in lieu of such a prohibited cash payment.

“8. Employment Qualification Commitment. I agree that any hiring or other employment decisions I make will be based on the candidate’s qualifications, competence, and experience.

“9. Assent to Enforcement. I acknowledge that the Executive Order entitled ‘Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel,’ issued by the President on January 20, 2021, which I have read before signing this document, defines certain of the terms applicable to the foregoing obligations and sets forth the methods for enforcing them. I expressly accept the provisions of that Executive Order as a part of this agreement and as binding on me. I understand that the terms of this pledge are in addition to any statutory or other legal restrictions applicable to me by virtue of Federal Government service.”

 

Cite Holder stating that tbe Justices of the Supreme Court are beholding to and report to the Congress on matters of their ethics and where the Constitution grants the Congress such authority over them.

This is going nowhere.

 

We are limited as to how much we can post from copyright material. The article was citing the constitutional quick put down of Whitehouse. Try addressing them.

That is exactly what you want those angels of ethics in the Congress to oversee the ethics of the Justices.....how rich. Who establishes the ethics of the members of Congress?

And that statement is false on it's face. Deal with the facts.

Not his child and lifelong friend of the family. Not a shred of evidence of any case before Thomax he could have influenced.

 

Taxand Spend Clause. Article 3 which establishes the court as a necessary function.

 

Yea and Al Capone was only guilty of tax evasion.

 

That's not precisely what the clause says.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
^ That doesn't say they have to fund any branch. It says they have the power to do so.

If what you're noting is that each branch essentially has the right to tell the others to get ****ed in certain spheres, that's by design.
The House's area is the purse.
The Senate's is impeachment.
The Executive can refuse to enforce the law.
The Judiciary reviews laws for constitutionality and can have them struck.

 

Quit moving the goalposts. We're talking about Supreme Court Justices, The President and Vice President, and congresspersons. We are not talking about people who work in the executive branch (like what? a couple of million???), lower court judges, judicial assistants and clerks, or congressional staff people, or the custodial staff, or anyone of a few million you can scrounge up that have legal ethics requirements to use to prove me wrong. CONGRESS CANNOT PASS ANY LEGISLATION THAT PUTS ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS ON SUPREME COURT JUSTICES..

 

Apparently not his child... his grandnephew, who he apparently raised like his child....

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

Commendable for both Crow and Thomas to do this

And still completely off-the-charts unethical, and quite probably illegal, if not disclosed by Thomas...

Propublica is in prime territory for their 7th Pultizer for their revealing of a privately owned member of SCOTUS....

 

And why is that? They approve them... they set the number of members, they can (and should) impeach them...

https://edtechbooks.org/democracy/r...roves justices,Congress can create amendments

If you don't have that, you DON'T have legitimate Checks and Balances....

 

Then I'll conclude you are OK with SCOTUS corruption (Clarence just loves the gravy train, wonder what he has to do to even the field?) and the appearance of and also with SCOTUS being above all transparency standards and ethics, sounds like a Trump wishing well breeding corruption.

Regardless, it would be good for every American to be able to see SCOTUS live up to a higher ethical and transparency standard given the responsibilities of those 9 public servants and it's effect on EVERY American.

 

Untrue. What you see is part of the checks and balances allotted to the SCOTUS. They are not bound to the normal whims of basic legislation. Only the Senate has the power to impeach them, and the Executive might refuse to enforce a ruling they've made, and the House may not allot them money to pay their rent.
Each of the branches has a way to tell the others to get ****ing bent. This 'nuclear option' tends to be something they just won't actually do in most cases because it would be political suicide in most cases.
There are of course exceptions, see Trail of Tears and Andrew Jackson's famous quote "Mr. Chief Justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.".
This is by design.

 

All very true, but they cannot pass and put specific ethical codes on them. Just because they can do some things doesn't mean they can do all kinds of other things. That isn't how the Constitutions or the laws work.

A code of ethics would not improve the checks and balances on the Court. It just might maybe make it easier to impeach. However, you raise an interesting albeit orthogonal point. SCOTUS has nor real effective checks and balances, probably the biggest oversight of the framers and ratifiers. They simply did not imagine a supreme court with the power the Court has had for the last 100 years or so. One of the ideas floating around in the Convention of the States Project rectifies this by an amendment that would allow a 2/3 vote of congress or the state legislatures to, after a time and with a few limitations and hurdles, overturn SCOTUS rulings..

 

1. OK... that works for me... It would be easy NOW if the party aligned with QAnon currently running the House would give a **** about this topic.
2. No, they didn't imagine a privately purchased member of SCOTUS....

 

It's definitely a violation of even the meagre disclosure requirements, of SCOTUS members. And Thomas cannot claim ignorance, because prior to this, he had reported a $5,000 gift, from a close friend, for the exact same thing (a tuition payment, for the young man in question). But he didn't disclose this/these gifts, from Crow. We don't know the total of this gift, but I just heard that, based on the published tuitions of the two schools, which the boy attended (& to which, Crow is alleged to have made payments), a full ride from Crow would have amounted to $150k.


I also heard Senator Dick Blumenthal, saying that Attn'y Gen'l Garland's opening of an investigation, into the Thomas- Crow relationship, is clearly warranted-- so I guess actual laws may have been broken, here. I hope that this blatant selling of Thomas's integrity, does eventually lead to his indictment and conviction. If it did, this all could have a bright side, though it probably won't.

That is, if the Dems were able to re-take control of the House (which is not so daunting a task, in this case), gain 2 more Senators (so that Schumer can get rid of the filibuster rule, w/out needing Manchin or Sinema) and hold onto the White House, we could theoretically get Thomas off the Court, on an accelerated schedule (compared to waiting for his death/retirement). While there would still not be sufficient Senate votes to convict Thomas, in an impeachment-- assuming that Republicans never begin to pay much of a price, for defending a corrupt Justice-- I think Democrats could pass a law, saying that any Justice convicted of such & such offense, could no longer serve on the Court (but I doubt Dems would be this creative).

Nevertheless, if the country is forced to live with this disgusting corruption, on our Highest Court, for a couple of more years, and Dems get the necessary numbers, just enumerated, I actually believe they would make more significant changes to the Court, than to just oust one, patently biased Justice, who believes that he is above answering to any rules.

 

The House has the power to impeach, the Senate has the power to Try.

LOL, what 'nuclear option' are you talking about? Imposing and enforcing basic ethics standards is a 'nuclear option' now?? That's sad and funny at the same time...

If these stories of corruption were coming out before this year, I suspect the House would be on the move already....