Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 90 posts

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

#41

Post by rqtwteye »

apozem wrote: post #10

This is a fine gesture, but it does not solve the fundamental problem that Supreme Court justices are an unelected super-government with lifetime appointments and zero accountability . The whole institution is absurd and undemocratic and, as Clarence Thomas has proved [0], ripe with opportunities for corruption. A non-binding code of ethics doesn't change that. [0]: https://www.propublica.org/series/supreme-court-sco…

I definitely would give them term limits and a maximum age. Let's say 16 years and a president gets 2 nominations per term (more if a judge dies or gets sick). Watching Bader-Ginsburgh basically die on the bench should be a warning.

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

#42

Post by KerrAvon »

ImJamal wrote: post #27
archildress wrote: post #11

Headline ought to be re-written as "Supreme Court forced to codify once-unwritten rules due to rampant abuse by Justice Thomas."

You may want to read the article since others have issues as well. >Many of those stories focused on Justice Clarence Thomas and his failure to disclose travel and other financial ties with wealthy conservative donors including Harlan Crow and the Koch brothers. But Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor also have been under scrutiny.

under scrutiny doing a lot of work in that sentence. What does that mean in practice?

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

#43

Post by phpisthebest »

apozem wrote: post #10

This is a fine gesture, but it does not solve the fundamental problem that Supreme Court justices are an unelected super-government with lifetime appointments and zero accountability . The whole institution is absurd and undemocratic and, as Clarence Thomas has proved [0], ripe with opportunities for corruption. A non-binding code of ethics doesn't change that. [0]: https://www.propublica.org/series/supreme-court-sco…

>>and undemocratic

yes, by design and it should remain so..

This idea that democracy is the end all be all is false and dangerous, very dangerous. Mob rule is never the solution to anything (as we are seeing with the massive mobs in support of terrorist organization Hamas)

There are all kinds of checks built into the American REPUBLIC that are undemocratic purposefully to prevent the whims of the mob for ruling.

Personally I would like to remove many of the "democratic" processes we have put in place since the founding, namely the election of senators by popular vote, The senate should be returned to be appointed by State Legislators.

If you want to reform the Court system end Stare decisis and make the court rule on the constitutionally of each case on their merits based on the actual words of the Constitution as was their original charge and their constitutional mandate

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

#44

Post by drawkward »

salamandersss wrote: post #20
apozem wrote: post #10

This is a fine gesture, but it does not solve the fundamental problem that Supreme Court justices are an unelected super-government with lifetime appointments and zero accountability . The whole institution is absurd and undemocratic and, as Clarence Thomas has proved [0], ripe with opportunities for corruption. A non-binding code of ethics doesn't change that. [0]: https://www.propublica.org/series/supreme-court-sco…

Yep. Ruth Ginsburg was another corrupt one, taking lavish trips funded by Israeli billionaires. But whoops, I wasn't supposed to mention the ones people here may like.

No, by all means: sunshine is the best disinfectant. Root out corruption and unethical behavior everywhere.

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

#45

Post by willcipriano »

mikeyouse wrote: post #34
willcipriano wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same is true of most of government. From the FDA to the ATF practical life altering choices are increasingly made by a unelected permanent government unfettered by things like accountability.

Those departments are executive branch departments, their leadership can be fired by the President and can be appointed with a simple majority in the Senate - hence how we've had 7 FDA commissioners since 2017 - not remotely comparable to the US Supreme Court.

One example of this accountability you ensure me exists: https://www.businessinsider.com/fda-chief-approved-oxycontin...

Guy is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the addiction of millions. He wasn't elected and he wont be punished.

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

#46

Post by seanw444 »

mettamage wrote: post #18
apozem wrote: post #10

This is a fine gesture, but it does not solve the fundamental problem that Supreme Court justices are an unelected super-government with lifetime appointments and zero accountability . The whole institution is absurd and undemocratic and, as Clarence Thomas has proved [0], ripe with opportunities for corruption. A non-binding code of ethics doesn't change that. [0]: https://www.propublica.org/series/supreme-court-sco…

How did the Supreme Court come into being? How has it been able to fly under the radar like this as being undemocratic?

It's a council of 9 justices who vote on final decisions. They are appointed by politicians who the people vote for. This is intentional, for the same reason that the Senate wasn't meant to be directly voted for by normal citizens either: normal citizens usually don't have the political involvement necessary to make educated decisions about who to appoint the position. In theory, at least.

It's a balance between politicians playing the circlejerk game to help each other with their misdeeds, and average joes voting for imbeciles.

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

#47

Post by addicted »

beezlebroxxxxxx wrote: post #23

This is an interesting attempt to ward off the growing skepticism of judicial supremacy in some groups. There is a fascinating struggle between judicial supremacy and constitutional supremacy in America with a long history. Obviously there are pros and cons to each view, and who is for or against one or the other often changes depending on the social issue at hand. I don't think a code of ethics will be very effectiv…

I don’t think this has any impact on the broader question of judicial vs constitutional supremacy.

I think this simply tries to address the fact that some of the justices have been ridiculously corrupt.

I mean, think about it, irrespective of your political leanings, you’re a judge whose basically forgone the much greater sums of money they could have made going into private service, in return for the comfort of a lifetime appointment, respect from the vast majority of people, and an effort to serve the country.

And there’s this 1 colleague of yours whose wife is raking in money from people whose cases you’re hearing, and is going on paid vacations with billionaires, and his mom is getting her house essentially gifted by another billionaire, etc.

You’d be pissed st this guy even if he was on “your side”. Just on a personal level it must be infuriating for the other 8 justices.

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

#48

Post by Ajedi32 »

hermannj314 wrote: post #24
apozem wrote: post #10

This is a fine gesture, but it does not solve the fundamental problem that Supreme Court justices are an unelected super-government with lifetime appointments and zero accountability . The whole institution is absurd and undemocratic and, as Clarence Thomas has proved [0], ripe with opportunities for corruption. A non-binding code of ethics doesn't change that. [0]: https://www.propublica.org/series/supreme-court-sco…

Agreed! I think the Supreme Court is crazy. Depending on the decade, the constitution may or may not allow segregation, gay marriage, abortion, or slavery. You have to squint sometimes and turn the document sideways. Your guess is as good as mine what the current Supreme Court will decide the constitution says or doesn't say. And on some issues they take decades of latency to come to these decisions. I do think it is…

Kind of tangential to your point, but slavery was made unconstitutional by a constitutional amendment (the 13th), not by the courts, so that's not a good example.

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

#49

Post by justrealist »

jcranmer wrote: post #36
Amorymeltzer wrote: post #3

The document itself: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justi... >For the most part these rules and principles are not new: The Court has long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules, that is, a body of rules derived from a variety of sources, including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary, ethics advisory opinions issued by the Judicial Confe…

One of the noticeable lacks I see is that there's a mention that a justice shouldn't be a member of a civic or charitable organization if it's going to be engaged in litigation before the court, but there's no corresponding mention for legal organizations that may be engaged in litigation. Given that one of the issues is the role of the Federalist Society in the many seeming conflicts of interests it produces, this d…

I think at that point you'd run into the infringement of first amendment rights for the judges themselves. You'd really say they aren't allowed to openly be a member of the ACLU or whatever?

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

#50

Post by phpisthebest »

salamandersss wrote: post #20
apozem wrote: post #10

This is a fine gesture, but it does not solve the fundamental problem that Supreme Court justices are an unelected super-government with lifetime appointments and zero accountability . The whole institution is absurd and undemocratic and, as Clarence Thomas has proved [0], ripe with opportunities for corruption. A non-binding code of ethics doesn't change that. [0]: https://www.propublica.org/series/supreme-court-sco…

Yep. Ruth Ginsburg was another corrupt one, taking lavish trips funded by Israeli billionaires. But whoops, I wasn't supposed to mention the ones people here may like.

Shhh only conservatives can be corrupt....
Post reply on HN