The conservative justice indicated support for a code of conduct similar to the one that applies to lower federal court judges.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett indicated Monday she would support a code of conduct for the Supreme Court in the wake of recent claims that some justices have fallen short of required ethical standards.

Speaking at the University of Minnesota Law School, Barrett said it would be “a good idea for us do it” and suggested that the justices are broadly in support of a set of principles similar to those that lower court judges are required to follow.

“There is no lack of consensus among the justices. There’s unanimity among all nine justices that we should and do hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards possible,” she added.

  • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t really understand how ethics rules would really help fix the inherent problems within the Supreme Court. How would they even be implemented, and what body overseas their application?

    Do the judges themselves decide when they break the ethics rules? Does the court decide the punishment? Unless there’s some mechanism of action in place to actually remove or punish a sitting Supreme Court justice, how will it be any different than what we have now? If there is some change to the separations of power, how will politicians utilize it to game the system?

    I honestly think this is just a way to appease the general public while not changing anything about the behaviour of the courts. Oh okay, I broke an ethics rule, I guess impeach me or something… oh yeah, 3/4 of Senate and the house are completely ethically bankrupt and would never remove a sitting justice on their own side!

    • Poayjay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s what kills me about this whole thing too. No one is talking about this. Rules without enforcement are just suggestions. Any meaningful enforcement mechanism will either have an impossibly high threshold or be inevitable be weaponized.

      An “ethics code” is a deflection from the real issue. Thomas must be impeached and removed. Any talk about an ethics code is distracting from the fact that the mechanisms we do have are not being used.

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeap, the best I can think of is a violation of the ethics rules lowering the needed votes for an impeachment from supermajority to majority. But that would inevitably lead to more political investigations and maneuvering in Congress.

        It’s all kind of hopeless unless we have people in Congress that care more about the people than their political parties, and if we had that this wouldn’t be a problem in the first place.

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Changing the impeachment processes would require a Constitutional amendment.

          Also, yeah, that would be an absolute mess. Would you really want a Republican House and Senate to be able to bulldoze the Court? Which would require the Dems to do it in return, and mean that functionally, the SCOTUS will always either match the partisan composition the House, Senate, and Presidency or otherwise be vacant.

      • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Let’s also keep in mind that the ethics committee in the House and Senate are seen as one of the most pointless, least powerful appointments in their respective bodies. They have zero enforcement power.

        The only way we’ll see real accountability is if we restore checks and balances with each branch able to remove members from other branches.

        But that’s not happening anytime soon.