The 15-page document said it largely compiled practices the justices informally followed. But the lack of a formal document “has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules,” it says. “To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.”
Are there examples of when self-regulation has actually worked?
the police
rimshot
unsuckpolitics
I’m here all week, thanks
I think some professions are self regulated adequately. I think actuaries would be one profession. I think part of the reason is that it’s usually one actuary initiating a disciplinary action against another. So there’s less circling the wagons.
This is a smart move by conservatives and it’ll very likely work. Of course by design it’s total bullshit.
I’m watching PBS (Mom is in town) and the expert on it is completely panning it. The PBS reporter is trying to get her say anything positive about it and she keeps crapping on it
The best scammers want to know exactly where the lines are so they know how to maximize the take and eliminate risk.
Yeah but the only people who really matter on this are the Mitt Romneys and Joe Manchins of the world. This gives them enough cover to say the court is self-policing and remains a legitimate and reliable institution and to push back hard on any actual reforms.
This just made me think: You just named two people who are 76 years old.
Are there any people from younger generations who seem to be true believers in bipartisan nonsense like they do?
I wouldn’t call Sinema a true believer, but she’ll play one on TV if the checks are big enough. I’m pretty sure there are some younger moderates in the House but they’re not bipartisan junkies the way the older ones are.
Weird golf rules?
I don’t think this is a fair characterization of the interview, but people can judge for themselves (New Supreme Court ethics code ‘does very little’ to hold justices accountable, expert says).
The media coverage for this actually seems pretty reasonable, I just saw a scrolling chyron on a network morning show that said “Critics slam new Supreme Court code of conduct as toothless”.
They’re just waiting out the storm, hoping some BS new policy is enough to keep people from rioting until eventually everyone stops caring.
to me it’s more insulting the way they’ve framed it like “look we didn’t even have to follow these rules but here ya go we were already doing this anyway” (they weren’t).
it’s a complete farce and apparently the only “checks” on these justices is a 2/3 vote which will never, ever happen in our lifetimes, our children’s lifetimes, or our great-great-great grand children’s lifetimes.
Court packing is a type of check on them, and it could definitely happen in our lifetimes.
…when Republicans do it, because Dems will never get the spine
Ehhh, right now sure. Lose the Manchins and Sinemas and get more Fettermans and AOCs and let things keep festering societally and economically for the bottom 60% and I think you’re going to find that the Democratic Party suddenly has some backbone.
LOL law or something real?