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

71–80 of 90 posts

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

#71

Post by ilovetux »

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…

> Not to mention all the self-righteous posturing of lawyers absolutely convinced this system epitomizes "justice".

I always had respect for the legal profession, but the way the Supreme Court is acting and the fact that nothing is being done about it has made me lose all respect for anyone in the legal profession.

Sure, most lawyers and judges might disagree with the actions of the Supreme Court, but lawyers are hesitant to say anything because they might end up as counsel in a Supreme Court case and don't want the court's ire.

The state of affairs really highlights how much of a dress-up, make-believe game the Legal profession has become.

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

#72

Post by barryrandall »

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…

There are no consequences and no requirements in the code. It accomplishes nothing. This is absolutely, positively worthless.

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

#73

Post by ImJamal »

addicted wrote: post #57
ImJamal wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suspect there’s a lot of gray areas and I suspect justices of all stripes have tripped over the gray area multiple times. But I think all the justices can see what Thomas was doing was pretty awful and I doubt any of the other justices, even those whose views I find abhorrent, would have gone that far. And we’re only talking about justices’ actions themselves. This ethics code very clearly brings in consideration o…

>But I think all the justices can see what Thomas was doing was pretty awful and I doubt any of the other justices, even those whose views I find abhorrent, would have gone that far.

I'm not sure that is the case. Ginsburg got a trip from a person and then the court declined to take up a case against said person.[1] The whole article is quite good so I would recommend reading the whole thing.

>This ethics code very clearly brings in consideration of the judge’s spouse’s activities as well, something which, once again is a major problem with Thomas, and none of the other judges as far as I can tell.

If his wife had wanted to give a speech and Thomas told her no, how many articles would there have been about the mean, misogynist, conservative man controlling his wife? It was a lose lose for Thomas on this so long as his wife wanted to do it.

I think this is on his wife, not him. Justice Breyer defended Thomas on this [2] as well.

There are examples of other justices' spouses doing similar things. Roberts' wife for example [3]. I'm sure there are more cases as well.

[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/06/scotus-justices-rac...

[2] https://www.newsweek.com/stephen-breyer-defends-ginni-thomas...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/us/john-roberts-jane-sull...

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

#74

Post by parrellel »

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."

Don't forget Robert's Wife, Alito, and (because we must cover our bases) Sotomayor's Children's books.

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

#75

Post by hermannj314 »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #48
hermannj314 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair point.

Despite that being passed in 186X, the court didn't have a clue if it applied to the involuntary draft, peonage contracts, or chain gangs until decades later.

The courts are so slow in this country.

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

#76

Post by beezlebroxxxxxx »

mikepurvis wrote: post #40
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…

As a foreigner who isn't in the know, what does constitutional supremacy look like in practical terms? Isn't it still the judges who have the last word on how the constitution is to be interpreted and applied?

Judicial supremacy is the idea that the judiciary is the sole arbiter of constitutional meaning. Lincoln, reacting to a ruling that upheld that black slaves “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" said:

> The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

Which is actually more nuanced than just "you can ignore the supreme court whenever." Instead, it's articulating the idea that the SC has to be balanced with congress and elected officials. The idea that the SC is the sole arbiter of constitutional meaning grates against the democratically elected power of congress and the executive. An SC that constantly rejects congress risks overstepping and delegitimizing it's very power and role. For instance, congress might simply ignore a ruling, or strip its jurisdiction over certain matters, or it might change the size of the court. This of course could equally backfire on congress and the president. It's, as always, a balancing act of checks and balances rather than just the SC always getting what they want. Constitutional supremacy then is more like the argument that sometimes the judiciary has to be saved from itself.

The debate has a fascinating history in American politics.

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

#77

Post by quickthrowman »

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?

The Supreme Court is laid out in the Constitution, but this decision is where the court derives its power of judicial review:

> Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

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

#78

Post by golergka »

moate wrote: post #69
golergka wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unelected super-government with lifetime appointments and zero accountability And what's the problem? That's exactly the point of this system — a part of government that is still _appointed by elected representatives_, but is not populist.

Because everyone wants neutral fair referees when their laws/rights are being interpreted but that’s an impossibility because humans aren’t neutral. The fact that there are problems with an alternative set up (oh no, unstable populism!) doesn’t mean the current paradigm is itself flawless. The parts of government that exist to slow things are always “very important to stability/safety/growth of the nation” but a lot…

> The fact that there are problems with an alternative set up (oh no, unstable populism!) doesn’t mean the current paradigm is itself flawless.

You're absolutely technically correct. In the same vain, this doesn't mean that there's any better alternative.

> the artifacts the rich and powerful put in place to ensure they and their friends and family stay rich and powerful for as long as possible

You could say the same about many other things that benefit society as a whole. Turns out, things that make society rich and stable often help those in power stay in power.

> Move fast and break things, especially governments.

Unfortunately, I've been on the internet too long to be 100% sure it's sarcasm. So, just in case — please don't break governments. And may be don't actually move fast with them. Thank you.

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

#79

Post by seanw444 »

phpisthebest wrote: post #68
seanw444 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poli…

>> 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 I am going to take slight issue with this, The reason the Senate was appointed as not because "normal citizens usually don't have the political involvement necessary to make educated decisions" it was because we are a…

Yes, that is true. I'm meaning the senators' interactions at a state-to-federal level is further beyond the average citizen's purview, whereas state senators are more likely to know who's fit to represent the state as a whole. As it stands now, we basically just have two houses of representatives, which is so stupid.

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

#80

Post by phpisthebest »

addicted wrote: post #47
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 li…

>>Just on a personal level it must be infuriating for the other 8 justices

this assumes that the practice is not common, the fact remains that most of these "violations" have been known for years and years, but it politically advantageous to go after this justice at this time.

It is all political, not some altruistic sense of ethics, Biden has been after Thomas since his confirmation

Post reply on HN