Search the Lounge


« South Dakota Law Announces Dean Finalists | Main | The Prince of Pompadoodle »

January 08, 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"At the Supreme Court level, the function of a judicial code is not to compel compliance or punish violations – both of which would be impossible, given life tenure and the separation of powers."

Would that we could ask Samuel Chase. If Congress wants to set out a set of reasons it believes would justify impeachment of a Justice, what's stopping it?

If the "Code of Conduct" has no teeth, your point is that it would embarrass a violator? Not much, I think, and even if "embarrassed" (see, e.g., the number of times RBG has been forced to retract intemperate political remarks), so what?

Hedley Lamarr, Car Wreck Counselor At Law, Call 1-800-BIG CASH NOW

You used the language "disparaging" to characterize RBG's remarks about our Dear Leader. "Disparaging" is subjective. What RBG articulated was factual. Her statements would not be covered or be seriously considered.

The Law Offcies of Kavanaugh Thomas, LLC, PC, LTD, Chartered, AV Rated

What should be covered are gifts. For instance, did Clarence Thomas ever pay for those Corvette tires? Many jurisdictions prohibit police officers from taking coffee or freebies.... Actually, it is nice to see a police officer pay for that cup of coffee....

Robert P. Burns

One of the few claims to "fundamental law" that the common law has produced is, "No man should be a judge in his own case." [The Rule in Bonham's case.] It honors the Rule that nine justices, who know intimately the unique context of Supreme Court decision-making, rather than one, set the standards publicly. One justice may be tempted to "make himself an exception" especially where the rule is not publicly stated.


you may find this to be of interest

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad