I have a piece on Slate this morning, once again addressing the absence of a Code of Conduct for the U.S. Supreme Court. Here are some key paragraphs:
The first bill introduced this year in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives had nothing to do with the border wall, the government shutdown, the troops in Syria, or other issues that have dominated recent headlines. Instead, the “For the People Act”—or HR 1—is devoted to government integrity, covering voting rights, campaign finance reform, and ethical standards. Among many potentially controversial and complex provisions, there is one that stands out for its simplicity: requiring the adoption of an ethics code for the U.S. Supreme Court. The fact that SCOTUS justices are the only nine judges in the United States who do not have a written code of ethics is not just a symbolic problem, but a very meaningful one that requires just this sort of legislative solution.
Democrats have repeatedly introduced legislation requiring the Supreme Court to adopt an ethics code, but the previous Republican House leadership never allowed it to come to the floor. Although the confirmation of Supreme Court justices has become increasingly rancorous, judicial ethics ought to be a nonpartisan issue. A written code would apply equally to liberal and conservative justices, thus covering Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s disparagement of then-candidate Donald Trump in the months before the 2016 election as well as Justice Samuel Alito’s appearance at a fundraiser for the right-leaning Claremont Institute. Both incidents would have violated specific ethics rules for every other U.S. judge, but not for the justices. Ginsburg eventually apologized for what she called “ill-advised” comments and promised to be “more circumspect” in the future; Alito declined to comment.
You can read the entire article here.
With our government shut down, it's time for a little reflection. Do we really need a Supreme Court or even and Article III entity? Americans own nearly 400 million firearms. We can save a ton of money and we won't have any Liberal Activist, god hating courts to divide us.
Posted by: Hedley Lamarr, Car Wreck Counselor at Law, Call 1-800-BIG CASH NOW! | January 16, 2019 at 01:37 PM
Good lord, the comments are just unreadable on TFL.
Posted by: anymouse | January 16, 2019 at 03:43 PM
Using multiple aliases, it seems that the bizarre nature of a certain type of comment of the FL is only getting worse since Steve posted a "commenting policy."
All of these comments should be deleted under the "irrelevant" rule that Steve adopted.
These comments are rarely related in any way to the post, and the "humor" is just beyond disgusting.
I can't help but wonder if there is some complicity here with the FL: how could it allow this otherwise?
Posted by: anon | January 16, 2019 at 03:49 PM
^^^^Anon, anon, Brackets, anymouse...seems like you are the only fellers' who read and respond to my comments? I try to inject some humor while we live under our Dear Leader. Maybe the WALL is to pen us in? Like IDOC or something? This blog is sometimes "dry" akin to reading case law like a real lawyer with real high falutin paying clients who pay for that kind of crap. So, I got creative and use an alias that I enjoy composing. You fellers' don't user your real names either. Are you Prof. Anon, Counsel Anymouse?
Posted by: Hedley Lamarr, CAR WRECK COUNSELOR AT Law, Call 1-800-BIG CASH NOW | January 16, 2019 at 04:22 PM
You demean the discussion with every comment.
You denigrate the very notion of intellectualism, on a blog called "the Faculty Lounge."
You say you inject "humor"?
No, sorry. You are not funny, not interesting, and most of the time, IMHO, incoherent. Very often, your comments are vulgar and paint a picture of criminal defense attorneys that is revolting. (For this reason, I don't believe you most of time.)
Again, the FL allows you to do this. For years, I've believed that your intent has been to destroy the comment section on this site. To a certain extent, you have.
It is for this reason that I wonder if the FL is complicit in your efforts.
Posted by: anon | January 16, 2019 at 09:04 PM
BTW, it is the point of the comment that counts, not who made it. Anonymity is required much of the time in the FL, given the level of anger that arises from time to time when political dogma is challenged.
Anonymity should not be, however, equated with vulgar, irrelevant and often incoherent rambling posing as "humor."
Posted by: anon | January 16, 2019 at 09:07 PM
^^^^You guys is funny. Somehow, this Blog won some kind of ABA thing award, and I have been posting my comments for several years. Can't be all that bad. My characterizations of my small sliver of the legal world, may be crudely put, but is essentially correct. What got you soooooooooooooooooo upset this time? My first erudite comment on this post?
Posted by: The Law Offcies of Kavanaugh Thomas, LLC, PC, LTD, Chartered, AV Rated | January 17, 2019 at 11:31 AM
I am going to allow one more comment in this increasingly inane thread, and then I will close it.
Vacuity, by itself, is not ordinarily grounds for deletion, but there are limits.
Posted by: Steve L. | January 17, 2019 at 11:58 AM
I think that's a wise choice, Steve, and I would like to use the occasion to offer what is perhaps my favorite Marcus Aurelius quote: "In the life of a man, his time is but a moment, his being an incessant flux, his sense a dim rushlight, his body a prey of worms, his soul an unquiet eddy, his fortune dark, his fame doubtful. In short, all that is body is as coursing waters, all that is of the soul as dreams and vapors." I grant that it has nothing to do with the post or the thread. It is in no way vacuous, but certainly is completely irrelevant. On the other hand, when you know there's only going to be one more comment, it seems like a nice opportunity to close things on a richer and more eloquent note.
Posted by: Paul Horwitz | January 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM