Yet another symptom of the cancerous effects America has suffered since money became speech and corporations could exploit our citizens’ rights and freedoms. The six GOP Supremes are out-of-control tumors on our body politic and their malignancy has metastasized throughout the GOP as well as spread to some Democrats in Congress. Our Constitution offers the remedy to cure this cancer, but it only works if our Congressional members choose to meet their purpose, and no longer serve their morbidly rich masters. Therefore, we just need to elect enough people that will promote our general welfare, and then they can force the Supremes to adhere to some common sense ethical rules. Or we can watch our democracy continue to waste away.

Expand full comment

Sadly, 40% is where public sentiment is likely to stick, while the "justices" and synergistic Republican politicians snigger at the non-mandate. Because the other four-out-of-ten will remain zombies droning "abortion abortion abortion take our guns take our guns take our guns...." If the stymie can't be broken to allow Medicare to negotiate drug pricing, I submit there is no level of corruption and public harm that is going to see any amelioration. Any schmuck could understand he wouldn't want to be in a lawsuit against the judge's brother-in-law, but obvious rightness of concept just doesn't matter in this world. Besides: "It's Biden's fault it's Commie Dem's fault it's Biden and the Commie Dems doing it...." You-know-who alone can fix it. Class dismissed.

Expand full comment

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” 👩‍⚖️

With all the legalese double-talk from on high, sometimes it’s hard to tell what “ethics” even means anymore when “justice” (another squishy word) is under the sway of the gilded class, or whether such quaint concepts even matter anymore, if they ever did, to the untouchables at the pinnacle of power, who make up the rules as they go primarily to benefit themselves and their benefactors in the service of maintaining power for “their people,” as Trump, Putin’s pet oligarch, continually reminds his despicable “basket of deplorables.” All else is secondary to that prime directive.

It’s also hard to tell what’s worse: the simplistic corruption of money and power, or the deeper corruption of self-righteousness. Take Amy Coney Barrett (please); she has that certain, ah, “fever” in her eyes that gives away her game, as if she regards the religious-whacko tenants of her faith as a higher authority than the hard-won, secular principles of the Constitution. Ya think? The robe of a priest would seem to fit her better.

Either way, money or God, the self-serving muddying of the waters to justify inherently wicked behavior is an age-old tradition of the politicking behind the scenes infecting all three branches of our government, and every government on Earth from time immemorial. As the “vast, right-wing conspiracy” machine (Lol, Hillary quotes always trigger the trolls.) shifts into high gear and overheats, blowing head gaskets and spewing smoke, the concept of right and wrong becomes highly relative in the eyes of disparate beholders, and therefore completely meaningless — ethics, schmethics.

Expand full comment

When you read about this subject, do you feel like you need a shower? It is very clear that Congress needs to put into simple language what the justices can and cannot do for a side-hustle, what investments they can hold, and the perks they can take for speaking. Basic recusal guidelines should not be needed for such an esteemed position, but it's obvious it is desperately needed.

These ethical issues and how to resolve them should be child's play by the time anyone is qualified to serve. Here is an excerpt from George Washington University's magazine about Justice Thomas; this was written by Ruth Steinhardt in 2012:

"What Justice Thomas tries most to communicate to students is that they should bring "humility" to the art of lawyering. "You've got to approach the law with a sense of modesty, and with thoroughness," he says. That notion of care and completeness is something the justice values outside the classroom as well. "All we're asking you to do is to look at [cases] honestly and thoroughly, so you have a full understanding of them," he says. "The rule I have with my law clerks is that they will leave their job with clean hearts, clean hands, and clean consciences. Because we're going to do things in a way that we think is [thorough.] Does that make us perfect? No. But there's no moral turpitude to [making] mistakes. That's just human imperfection."

If only all of that clean talk was real.

Expand full comment

Mr. Hartman is exactly correct: The US Congress has always had the power to create specific laws that are exempted from the Judicial Review of the Supreme Court:

"Back when Roberts was a young lawyer working for Reagan and trying to come up with a way to overturn Brown v Board and Roe v Wade, he was fond of quoting Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

This gave Congress the power, Roberts wrote, to simply overturn both Brown and Roe by passing a law creating an “exception” that the Supreme Court couldn’t rule on issues of race or abortion (his lengthy writings for Reagan are in my book on the Court)."

The BIG question has always been: Why has the US House and Senate historically been unwilling to cement some rulings into super-majority votes that represent the will of the people who elected them? Perhaps because 'We The People" almost never have elected our senators and representatives, but have left it to the lobbyists and special interests?

So, ultimately, blaming individual members of the US Supreme Court may be ineffective; instead, we need to elect a new kind of representatives and senators. And, perhaps, send them home after 1-2 terms?

The passionate people at https://www.brandnewcongress dot org/ appear to be doing a good job. They certainly would do even better if 50,000 people signed up for $25 per month.

Expand full comment