Posted on 02/12/2023 7:00:27 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Democrats in the Senate are ratcheting up new legislation to promote stricter ethics guidelines for the Supreme Court amid revelations that the justices have tried for years to compromise on a new code of conduct, only to fail on unanimity.
On the same day the Washington Post reported the justices had been trying without success to agree on a code of conduct for at least four years, citing sources familiar with the matter, Democrats in the Senate introduced two pieces of legislation that aim to heavily clamp down on the justices' ability to exercise their own discretion on the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which was first introduced in 1973 and is consulted by the nine justices on the bench.
The first bill is titled the Supreme Court Ethics Act, legislation introduced by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) with the backing of 25 Democratic senators. Companion legislation in the House is backed by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA). The main provision of Murphy's bill would establish a statutory ethics officer and a process for filing complaints against the justices for violating ethics rules. Another bill known as the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act was introduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Thursday and is also backed by Johnson. Its primary provision includes a complaint process and creates a panel for reviewing justices' indiscretions.
Questions on ethics standards have been raised numerous times in recent years about various justices. Such inquiries arose last year as text messages revealed Justice Clarence Thomas's spouse, Ginni Thomas, supported former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the election. Likewise, ethics concerns came up when liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg raised vocal criticism of Trump...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Hmmm.dims and stricter ethics.
unconstitutional, the supreme court decides how to handle its own internal matters, the same as congress.
When are we going to get some new ETHICS bills for those bass turds up on Da Hill? They’re the SOBs without any ETHICS.
Democrats and ethics don’t mix.
They want LEFTIST judges. Period.
This is how they’re going to justify more justices. They’re going to pack the court. We called this years ago.
You know it. The fools and idiots don’t. It is them they are trying to fool. They make up at least 51% per cent of the population now and their numbers grow every day. It is them that the Democrats know they have to keep fooling.
“establish a statutory ethics officer”
Because less government is never a good idea.
She looks like that demented Peter Strjosk (sp) in that pic
“unconstitutional”
Very. Shouldn’t even need a first year law student to know that.
👍
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” ― Abraham Lincoln ..... Obviously, you can fool enough of the people enough of the time to steal an election.
If politicians attempt to overthrow the government, why s it not called insurrection? Crawling towards a coup still delivers the same result.
I’m sure there is no hidden agenda to remove Right-leaning Justices in the name of “justice”. Nah, they wouldn’t do that…
How about a new law saying no former members of Congress, or immediate family members, can work for a group, organization, or corporation over which said Congressman ever had jurisdiction (i.e., Appropriations, Armed Services, etc.) when they leave Congress, for 10 years. Including board seats and paid speeches or appearances.
The war in Ukraine would end overnight.
"...incapacitating illness and imminent death was a Potemkin village fraud upon the Republic. She gambled on a Cankles victory and LOST, and frankly that gamble finished her off. RIH.
Doesn't teach at Palo Alto, still has security costs, and the kiss-off was when her BFF Leland Keyser threw her under the bus once and for all in 2019. Oh, and Daddy is still a hard-core RINO running The Columbia Country Club.
From the article:
“justices had been trying without success to agree on a code of conduct for at least four years,”
They probably spent 90% of that time explaining the big words to all the equal opportunity affirmative action justices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.