Legal experts say its time for the Supreme Court’s ethics code to grow some teeth
Legal experts are lamenting the lack of an enforceable judicial ethics code, with some calling for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s recusal, following a New York Times report that a symbol of the “Stop the Steal” movement to reject the 2020 election was flown outside Alito’s home in the wake of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Ten leading legal experts told Salon Friday that the conduct — the flying of an upside-down flag, a known symbol of the movement to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, at a justice’s home — appears to violate the Supreme Court’s own ethics code, adopted last last year, by creating an appearance of bias.
Those experts said it’s far past time for the nine justices who enjoy lifetime appointments to hold themselves to the highest ethical standards. But, they noted, the Supreme Court has shown itself reluctant to do so.
“The situation is out of control,” Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush who worked with Justice Alito on his 2006 Senate confirmation, told Salon. “This is after the insurrection, so it’s really him weighing in, getting involved publicly in a dispute over the insurrection.”
Same goes for the other ones to be nominated by a president who lost the vote for president (Alito and Roberts), and the other likely sex offender whose victim(s) never got a fair hearing or investigation, Clarence Brown.
Clarence Thomas, as in uncle Tom.
That’s the one, yeah. The one who said that there’s no loss of dignity inherent to slavery.
I…what? Do you mean lost the popular vote?
Yes. That’s how democracy is supposed to work: the candidate whom the most people want to win, wins.
But that’s not how our system is setup. If you have a problem, talk or do something about the electoral college. But to pretend legally and legitimately elected presidents who won within the rules of the system as were defined at the time of their running are somehow illegitimate is some wonky revisionist history.
Nah, you’re only legitimate if the people chose you.
If you were installed by an archaic system from the 1700s designed to give empty land as much of a say as actual humans, even though the people preferred your opponent, then you’re not legitimate.
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical rural tradition.
And yet, you’re wrong aren’t you?
Nope. I just don’t automatically consider the system infallible and correct.
Legitimate presidents get elected, not appointed via an antidemocratic mechanism that hasn’t been excised because too many rich and powerful people benefit from it.
And yet, they are.
Not legitimately, no. Your comprehension seems lacking.