Imposing a judicial code of ethics on SCOTUS like the European Parliament is creating this week is a vital place for Congress and the White House to begin...
Thoughtful piece & as good an argument as any as to why Congress must apply some ethics rules around SCOTUS. However, my fear is that the State legislature scheme will be authenticated by these people before any steps will be taken to keep these judges in line.
“ In its original literal sense, "moral relativism" is simply moral complexity. That is, anyone who agrees that stealing a loaf of bread to feed one's children is not the moral equivalent of, say, shoplifting a dress for the fun of it, is a relativist of sorts. But in recent years, conservatives bent on reinstating an essentially religious vocabulary of absolute good and evil as the only legitimate framework for discussing social values have redefined "relative" as "arbitrary."
My son, who is a judge on a lower state court, told me about the quarterly Judicial Conduct Reporter, which regularly discusses ethical issues and annually reviews the previous year's judicial ethics and discipline. It also summarizes all cases in which judges were removed from office. Something like that should be looking over the shoulders of all Supreme Court members too.
But it is hard to expect better of anyone when so much is allowed to slide. Some years ago my wife and I heard Thomas Wolfe discuss the biggest changes he had seen in America. At the top of the his was the loss of shame by public figures. In 1958 Eisenhower's Chief of Staff, Sherman Adams, was fired for taking a rug and a coat from a man being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission. Today concerns about doing something like that would be laughed at. From politicians to actors to business people, for many the only wish seems to be not getting caught. My wife saw that when she went for her MBA and the younger people taking the ethics class with her only wanted to know how close they could come to the line without getting into trouble.
We must remember that John Roberts, Alito, Barrett, etc., and the wealthy evangelicals funding right-wing causes are appointed by God Himself and are implementing His will and hastening the Second Coming. Their work is much more important than the laws of mere mortals or a constitution that purposefully left Him out. This is what they believe and they fully expect to be protected from consequences and rewarded for their deeds. Thy ae not likely to be bothered much by a code of ethics at least until people start going to prison for violations.
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What's not to get? That whole paragraph is simple, straightforward language constructed to survive the ages. It is clear and unambiguous, especially about religion. And yet, here we are: only 231 years (tomorrow) since the Bill of Rights was adopted. How far we've strayed -- five robed, dour-faced priests and one wild-eyed priestess going full theocracy, shoving their own narrow (and false) religious beliefs down everyone else's throats. Praise be to MY god, and damn your rights!
Diverse in their own personal beliefs, the Framers were still astute students of history and mostly agreed on the big, consequential issues facing a nation of equally diverse people in an adversarial world. Religion was top of their mind. They knew the centuries-long, "absolute" political power of the Catholic Church and how "She" (the Bride of Christ) subjugated entire kingdoms. They knew the power of the Church of England married to an aristocracy, with all the money and privilege that implied.
It seems obvious they were thinking more about freedom FROM religion than "of" religion, although both is and should be true, as long as evangelical "true believers" don't trample all over the sacred rights of others. But, call it the worst in human nature, as with the power of private money interests, there alway exists a greater danger religion will corrupt a government than the other way around. Religious authoritarianism is a deadly threat to democracy that will, unfortunately, also survive the ages, now playing out during our spit of time on stage.
So, what will the secret star chamber of six overlords ultimately and absolutely decide is best for the rest of us 335,813,713 humble subjects? Glorious is thine infallible decrees we await with bended knee, oh great and powerful robed figures looking down from high pulpits ...and a pile of money.
"Supreme" from the MW Dictionary: 1) highest in rank or authority 2) highest in degree or quality. SIMPLE!
Every job I ever had involved ethical choices. I worked with large sums of money, military duties, and supervising others. No fancy degree involved that included endless discussions of law and ethics. Taking bribes to pad the books, sell secrets, and give my work friends extras was not an option. I used my moral compass, and I liked being respected for my integrity. SIMPLE!
From Senator Whitehouse's website: "This bill addresses these shortcomings to support and guide the Justices as they navigate the tough ethical questions they face for generations to come.” Tough ethical questions? Any Justice that needs guidance on the appearance of or actual taking of favors of any kind is a moral-moron. SIMPLE!
You forgot Marbury v. Madison which does give the Supreme Court power over Congress and the Executive Branch if a law is unconstitutional. So, the Court does have some pretty broad powers which it is abusing. As for Kavanaugh, he's a drunk. He was drunk at his hearing when he was crying and then took on Senator Klobuchar. He was too hung over from his frat party alumni gig to show up for his job on 9/11 (he was White House staff to Bush).
Both numbers should work. I called the 225-3121 number before publishing this piece and got the capitol operator. Anybody else have problems with this?
Thoughtful piece & as good an argument as any as to why Congress must apply some ethics rules around SCOTUS. However, my fear is that the State legislature scheme will be authenticated by these people before any steps will be taken to keep these judges in line.
I agree, Biden would have to get right to work before 2024 to expand the Supreme Court, which I’m not hopeful will happen.
“ In its original literal sense, "moral relativism" is simply moral complexity. That is, anyone who agrees that stealing a loaf of bread to feed one's children is not the moral equivalent of, say, shoplifting a dress for the fun of it, is a relativist of sorts. But in recent years, conservatives bent on reinstating an essentially religious vocabulary of absolute good and evil as the only legitimate framework for discussing social values have redefined "relative" as "arbitrary."
- Ellen Jane Willis, writer (14 Dec 1941 - 2006)
co-opt the Lingo
Win the War.
My son, who is a judge on a lower state court, told me about the quarterly Judicial Conduct Reporter, which regularly discusses ethical issues and annually reviews the previous year's judicial ethics and discipline. It also summarizes all cases in which judges were removed from office. Something like that should be looking over the shoulders of all Supreme Court members too.
But it is hard to expect better of anyone when so much is allowed to slide. Some years ago my wife and I heard Thomas Wolfe discuss the biggest changes he had seen in America. At the top of the his was the loss of shame by public figures. In 1958 Eisenhower's Chief of Staff, Sherman Adams, was fired for taking a rug and a coat from a man being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission. Today concerns about doing something like that would be laughed at. From politicians to actors to business people, for many the only wish seems to be not getting caught. My wife saw that when she went for her MBA and the younger people taking the ethics class with her only wanted to know how close they could come to the line without getting into trouble.
So interesting. Because this branch of government must be free of corruption. They ‘redefine’ our laws now!
We must remember that John Roberts, Alito, Barrett, etc., and the wealthy evangelicals funding right-wing causes are appointed by God Himself and are implementing His will and hastening the Second Coming. Their work is much more important than the laws of mere mortals or a constitution that purposefully left Him out. This is what they believe and they fully expect to be protected from consequences and rewarded for their deeds. Thy ae not likely to be bothered much by a code of ethics at least until people start going to prison for violations.
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What's not to get? That whole paragraph is simple, straightforward language constructed to survive the ages. It is clear and unambiguous, especially about religion. And yet, here we are: only 231 years (tomorrow) since the Bill of Rights was adopted. How far we've strayed -- five robed, dour-faced priests and one wild-eyed priestess going full theocracy, shoving their own narrow (and false) religious beliefs down everyone else's throats. Praise be to MY god, and damn your rights!
Diverse in their own personal beliefs, the Framers were still astute students of history and mostly agreed on the big, consequential issues facing a nation of equally diverse people in an adversarial world. Religion was top of their mind. They knew the centuries-long, "absolute" political power of the Catholic Church and how "She" (the Bride of Christ) subjugated entire kingdoms. They knew the power of the Church of England married to an aristocracy, with all the money and privilege that implied.
It seems obvious they were thinking more about freedom FROM religion than "of" religion, although both is and should be true, as long as evangelical "true believers" don't trample all over the sacred rights of others. But, call it the worst in human nature, as with the power of private money interests, there alway exists a greater danger religion will corrupt a government than the other way around. Religious authoritarianism is a deadly threat to democracy that will, unfortunately, also survive the ages, now playing out during our spit of time on stage.
So, what will the secret star chamber of six overlords ultimately and absolutely decide is best for the rest of us 335,813,713 humble subjects? Glorious is thine infallible decrees we await with bended knee, oh great and powerful robed figures looking down from high pulpits ...and a pile of money.
"Supreme" from the MW Dictionary: 1) highest in rank or authority 2) highest in degree or quality. SIMPLE!
Every job I ever had involved ethical choices. I worked with large sums of money, military duties, and supervising others. No fancy degree involved that included endless discussions of law and ethics. Taking bribes to pad the books, sell secrets, and give my work friends extras was not an option. I used my moral compass, and I liked being respected for my integrity. SIMPLE!
From Senator Whitehouse's website: "This bill addresses these shortcomings to support and guide the Justices as they navigate the tough ethical questions they face for generations to come.” Tough ethical questions? Any Justice that needs guidance on the appearance of or actual taking of favors of any kind is a moral-moron. SIMPLE!
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, I hope this bill passes.
The information about Justin Kennedy, struck a nerve! Blackmailing a Supreme Court (Justice?)
You forgot Marbury v. Madison which does give the Supreme Court power over Congress and the Executive Branch if a law is unconstitutional. So, the Court does have some pretty broad powers which it is abusing. As for Kavanaugh, he's a drunk. He was drunk at his hearing when he was crying and then took on Senator Klobuchar. He was too hung over from his frat party alumni gig to show up for his job on 9/11 (he was White House staff to Bush).
“Its good to be the king”, Mel Brooks
Both numbers should work. I called the 225-3121 number before publishing this piece and got the capitol operator. Anybody else have problems with this?