Democrats Seek to Impose Tougher Supreme Court Ethics

[nofurylike]

By Eric Lichtblau
September 8, 2011

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/...rt-ethics/

-snip-

In a letter that is being sent Friday to House Judiciary Committee leaders, 43 Democrats called for a hearing on a bill that would require Supreme Court justices to follow the ethics requirements of the Judicial Conference Code of Conduct in withdrawing from cases where they may have a financial or political conflict. The justices now use the code for “guidance” but are not required to follow it.

-snip-

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, would also require the justices to disclose publicly their reasons for any withdrawal from a case and would set up a process to review possible conflicts if a justice refuses to step aside.

The notion of imposing higher ethics standards on the Supreme Court appears to be gaining momentum among House Democrats and outside legal scholars, but its prospects in the Republican-controlled House are still uncertain.

-snip-

###

[jaxx]

Ohhh that will make some of them mad.....like Clarence Thomas! Good job Dems.

[nofurylike]

(09-09-2011 04:37 AM)jaxx Wrote:  Ohhh that will make some of them mad.....like Clarence Thomas! Good job Dems.

it certainly will! but then, it hasn't taken their being angered for them to be corrupt, and incredibly destructive to this country, so it can only help.

"Good job Dems," YES!!

thank you, jaxx!

[SeattleGirl]

I would love to see that bill passed! For me, if the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, then they should have to abide by the highest of ethical standards. And that goes for all of them, regardless of political affiliation.

[nofurylike]

(09-09-2011 11:37 PM)SeattleGirl Wrote:  I would love to see that bill passed! For me, if the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, then they should have to abide by the highest of ethical standards. And that goes for all of them, regardless of political affiliation.

very important points!
"should have to abide by the highest of ethical standards." yes! i was very surprised that they are held to a looser standard!

and i agree, "all of them ... " i wonder how the activities of the liberal justices compare. i found it interesting that the article didn't list any of their supposed transgressions, since it did suggest they exist, even if the letter hadn't.

that twisted false equivalency crap again:
Never! EVER! report that the repugs did something wrong without adding "weeeeellll THEEEEEEYYYY did something wrong too-ooo-oooo ... whiney whine whine!"




thank you, SeattleGirl!

[azmouse]

I like hearing this kind of news. And I bet several members of the SC don't like it.

[nofurylike]

(09-10-2011 10:34 AM)azmouse Wrote:  I like hearing this kind of news. And I bet several members of the SC don't like it.

it is good news when it means power could become more ethical, isn't it?

i bet you're right, azmouse! maybe all won't, but they should have been better at self-policing, then. who would think they would NEED stricter standards?!

disturbing.

thank you!