Legal experts say its time for the Supreme Court’s ethics code to grow some teeth

Legal experts are lamenting the lack of an enforceable judicial ethics code, with some calling for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s recusal, following a New York Times report that a symbol of the “Stop the Steal” movement to reject the 2020 election was flown outside Alito’s home in the wake of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

Ten leading legal experts told Salon Friday that the conduct — the flying of an upside-down flag, a known symbol of the movement to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, at a justice’s home — appears to violate the Supreme Court’s own ethics code, adopted last last year, by creating an appearance of bias.

Those experts said it’s far past time for the nine justices who enjoy lifetime appointments to hold themselves to the highest ethical standards. But, they noted, the Supreme Court has shown itself reluctant to do so.

“The situation is out of control,” Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush who worked with Justice Alito on his 2006 Senate confirmation, told Salon. “This is after the insurrection, so it’s really him weighing in, getting involved publicly in a dispute over the insurrection.”

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    7 months ago

    Oh ,don’t worry.

    We asked them if they need oversight. And every single SC judge said there’s no reason any of them need oversight.

    Which is apparently enough to convince moderates Dems that we don’t need to do anything

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        7 months ago

        You think “making SC justices accountable” wouldn’t get more Dems elected?

        FDR was progressive enough and voters knew he was trying to help, that people got him that kind of supermajority.

        Granted, the “moderate” Dems still stopped him from passing universal healthcare 80 years ago, but at that point voters would have eventually replaced them.

        Instead the “moderates” took power and convinced voters trying is pointless, and now they pretend to be surprised when turnout is bad.

        That’s kind of the whole rub with “moderate” Dems. They have to walk a right rope where just enough people are politically engaged to beat Republicans, but not so many that theres no excuse for not doing shit.

        It’s like when that NBA guy was betting for his team to win, but not beat the spread. So he’d make “mistakes” in the game and fake injuries.

        You lose more when you’re not trying to win by as much as you can. But if you get more money (campaign donations from billionaires and corporations) it’s what you care more about than if the team gets a W.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          7 months ago

          “You think “making SC justices accountable” wouldn’t get more Dems elected?”

          Not sure where you got that from? I was just saying the Dems don’t control the house, and the house would have to make those accountability guidelines.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            7 months ago

            Is Dem leadership out there on the bully pulpit talking about how many more seats we need and where we should focus?

            No?

            They’re not? They just stopped talking about?

            Like, this shit is literally what party leaders are supposed to be doing, instead Hakeem Jefferies are Chuck Schumer are running around talking about how funding Israel’s genocide is so important and painting peaceful protesters as the real villains. As is Biden.

            The president and Dem leaders in the Senate and House don’t represent the priorities of their voters.