re: They’re Going After Justice Clarence Thomas Now (Again)

quote:

---

It seems the section you quoted essentially summerizes the point I made. I see no contradiction.

---

What? You said the exact opposite. You:

quote:

---

If the Supreme Court justices are somehow exept from the Ethics and Government Act, that would be news to me. Perhaps you are mistaken or confused. And the new rules over Supreme Court justices disclosures absolultey include paid vacations, not just gifts, under certain circumstances.

---

And then I posted:

quote:

---

Roberts denied the authority of the Judicial Conference, stating that its “committees have no mandate to prescribe rules or standards” for the Supreme Court.

---

You said it would be news to you if the Supreme Court justices were exempt from the Ethics in Government Act, then I posted Chief Justice John Roberts saying more than a decade ago that the Supreme Court is not bound by that act, or really anything else Congress comes up with.

We are saying opposite things and you don’t see the contradiction?


I do agree that the SC should be more transparent, but the way our system is set up with separation of powers, the SC themselves will have to agree to abide by a code of ethics, the legislative and/or executive branches can’t impose it on the judicial branch.