- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Supreme Court Ethics Act proposed
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:21 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:21 pm
If the liberal justices on the SCOTUS were caught doing some of things that Scalia and Thomas had done the howls from the right would be deafening.
One would hope this bill will enjoy bipartisan support.
LINK
One would hope this bill will enjoy bipartisan support.
quote:
A group of congressional Democrats is set to introduce legislation Thursday that would apply stricter ethical standards to the Supreme Court, amid concerns that justices have been engaging in questionable behavior.
The proposed Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2013 would subject the justices to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, a set of standards that currently applies to all other federal judges. Those rules would have forced the justices to recuse themselves from certain cases or explicitly prohibited some high-profile activities that have attracted scrutiny and demand for reform in the past few years.
The controversy over Supreme Court ethics re-emerged late last month, when Mother Jones reported that Ginni Thomas -- a well-connected tea party consultant and wife of Justice Clarence Thomas -- held an integral role in Groundswell, a conservative coalition of journalists and activists that has been meeting privately to coordinate talking points and messaging on key political issues. The revelation led to a new round of questions about whether her brand of partisan activism should constitute a conflict of interest for her husband, who has been tasked with ruling on many of the issues that she is involved in.
Currently, the Supreme Court's system for dealing with conflicts of interest, or appearances of conflicts, is to leave it to each justice's own best judgment. In the past, justices have recused themselves from cases apparently because they held significant stock in a company before the court or when their adult offspring were professionally involved in the case. But Thomas took part in the Obamacare decision despite calls to recuse himself due to his wife's outspoken advocacy against the law.
Reform advocates have similarly noted that Justices Antonin Scalia and Thomas attended a Koch Industries fundraiser in 2010, just months after siding with the majority in the landmark Citizens United case, which effectively empowered the billionaire Koch brothers to spend millions of dollars in support of conservative political candidates.
The liberal Alliance for Justice has argued that the appearance of Scalia and Thomas as speakers at a 2011 dinner fundraiser for the conservative Federalist Society is reason for a closer look at Supreme Court ethics. Legal experts also questioned Scalia's appearance at a 2012 fundraiser for Friends of Abe, a group of Hollywood conservatives that has championed Republican causes and candidates.
The bill to be introduced Thursday -- by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) -- will be the latest move to impose binding ethics rules on the justices. Murphy introduced a similar effort in 2011, when he was a congressman. Slaughter has been pressing the issue since 2011, when she and a group of 19 other representatives raised questions over apparent discrepancies in Thomas' income disclosure forms. In 2012, a group of congressional lawmakers including Slaughter asked Chief Justice John Roberts to voluntarily adopt the Judicial Code of Conduct. He declined.
LINK
This post was edited on 2/16/14 at 10:25 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:29 pm to Toddy
quote:
But Thomas took part in the Obamacare decision despite calls to recuse himself due to his wife's outspoken advocacy against the law.
Not quite as bad as Elena Kagan who helped to write the f'n law.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:31 pm to Toddy
Elena Kagan: The ObamaCare Recusal That Wasn't
quote:
When the U.S. Supreme Court releases its decision on the fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Justice Elena Kagan will cast a vote that should not have been counted. The relevant rule requires that Supreme Court justices recuse themselves if in their previous capacity they served as "counselor or advisor" concerning a current matter before the Court, or if there is anything about the proceeding by which the justice's impartiality can reasonably be called into question.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:34 pm to Toddy
Wasn't the California judge who ruled against Prop 8 gay? I'm sure you were fine with that but the butthurt is strong with you because Thomas' wife was opposed to the ACA? Come on now.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:35 pm to wickowick
Kagan should have recused herself.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:35 pm to Toddy
quote:
If the liberal justices on the SCOTUS were caught doing some of things that Scalia and Thomas had done the howls from the right would be deafening.
kagan and obamacare?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:36 pm to Toddy
No judge is gonna recuse themselves on an issue like this. Too big of a policy decider.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:37 pm to ClydeFrog
quote:
Wasn't the California judge who ruled against Prop 8 gay? I'm sure you were fine with that but the butthurt is strong with you because Thomas' wife was opposed to the ACA? Come on now.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:37 pm to Toddy
quote:Well you still prove your fricking hackish idiocy by stating if the Lib Justices did this......
Kagan should have recused herself.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:41 pm to Toddy
quote:Where is the deafening howl you speak of? Dramatize much?
Kagan should have recused herself.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:43 pm to Toddy
quote:A gay judge wouldn't have a vested interest?
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:44 pm to Jbird
Yeah Toddy is avoiding that issue but hey don't let something relevant get in the way of you bashing an African American judges wife. Racist and hypocritical
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:45 pm to vodkacop
The ends justify the means.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:47 pm to Jbird
Toddy goes with the "whatever works" strategy in politics...except when it doesn't benefit his side and agenda. He's a true hypocrite.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:49 pm to Jbird
quote:
quote:
You're comparing apples to oranges.
A gay judge wouldn't have a vested interest?
i think the recusal process for lower judges is different.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:50 pm to Jbird
Roberts should have recused his dumb arse on that one. Tax, my arse....Even Obama said it wasn't a tax...
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:56 pm to CamdenTiger
quote:
Roberts should have recused his dumb arse on that one. Tax, my arse....Even Obama said it wasn't a tax...
20 years from now I still believe that Roberts will come off as looking like the evil genius to the statist left. Obamacare and the politics that surround it just needs time to play out.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News