The Supreme Court issued a new code of ethics today. Huzzah? It is eight (8) pages long, five of which deal with recusal and outside activities such as speaking—none of which have been especially controversial lately.
But gifts have been controversial, so let's take a look at the gift section:
A Justice should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Regulations on Gifts now in effect.
Also, this includes family members. And that's it. In short, the current rules are fine and no further clarifications are needed. You'll please excuse me if I'm underwhelmed.
POSTSCRIPT: The word "disclosure" appears only twice: once to ensure that justices don't disclose nonpublic information and once here:
For some time [since 1991], all Justices have agreed to comply with the statute governing financial disclosure, and the undersigned Members of the Court each individually reaffirm that commitment.
That's all there is. Everything is fine the way it is. Note also that this is phrased merely as a personal commitment. It's not part of the actual code.
jsndjasnd
Making every month extra dollars by doing an easy job Online. Last month i have earned and received $18539 from (Q)this home based job just by giving this only mine 2 hrs a day. Easy to do work even a child can get this and start making money Online. Get this today by follow instructions........
On This Website.................> > c
Clarence, is that you?
I’m paid $185 per hour to complete the task using an Apple laptop. I absolutely didn’t think it was conceivable,(Q) but my dependable buddy convinced me to give this straight forward chance a go after she made $26,547 in just 4 weeks working on it. Visit the following page to find out additional
instructions———>>> cyberfortifypro555.pages.
.dev
It's ironic that in this little spot about SCoTUS ethics and accepting big bucks from donors, most of the comments are from spammers.
It looks like somebody is trying to convince Kevin to get a spam blocker.
Maybe this will prompt him to upgrade the whole comments system. My wish list of features:
1) up/down voting
2) sorting based on time and vote count
3) a way to view a list of all my comments
4) spammer blocking/reporting
Can this be done on Word Press?
yup, wpdiscuz plugin does it i think, and i'm sure others can too.
👍👍
For how much a month or MB?
+All
5) email notification of replies to comments or of new posts on an item that you've indicated interest in tracking.
There's not much fun in commenting on a thread and then never having a reason to revisit it in case someone has responded to tell you you're full of it (or whatever).
Why don’t they adopt the same code that all other federal judges have to abide by? Answer: that would make it more difficult to grift a la Clarence and Sam and Neil and Brett and John (via his lawyer spouse, who recruits promising young lawyers for blue-chip law firms) to grift.
Am I to understand that this code of ethics would preclude the completely innocent practice of obtaining a $267K loan for a motor home, from a so called "friend", and subsequently having that debt forgiven by the friend?
I suppose lending your brother $200K and subsequently getting it paid back sounds downright criminal in comparison.
Your understanding is quite correct, sir/madam. The former instance regards an entirely innocent transaction between close friends, one which could not possible impinge on the integrity of the court. The latter, however, involves a clear attempt at influence peddling, money laundering, election interference, and all around villainy.
That's all sorted now.
Republican congressmen can't imagine that if someone was sharp enough to con his brother into handing over a totally unsecured loan for $200k, that he'd ever actually pay it back. There just has to be something crooked going on.
The ethics code clearly states they "should not" obtain a $267k "free" loan for a luxury RV. It doesn't say they can't.
Nope. they are taking the position that everything Thomas has been doing is perfectly fine.
Without bad faith…
Conservatives would have no arguments at all.
Yes, weak tea. However, is this not progress?
It's easy to be cynical, I guess, but yes it is.
I read the first couple of pages and it's clear Thomas (et al.) consistently broke the ethic rules for the court. Any fair observer would say the same. It may lead to more reform down the road, especially regarding enforcement. Under the circumstances, a baby step in the direction of reform is better than none at all.
It is not progress at all. It is explicitly enshrining that everything Thomas was doing is fine and that the only ethics supreme court justices need to follow is what they personally think is right for themselves as individuals.
How ethics rules work:
R.I.P., Maryanne Trump Barry. Her taxpayer-funded retirement benefits have now come to end.
For those keeping score at home: For Fred Trump's five children, that's three down, two to go.
We can call this the Leo^2 Declaration, in honor of Leonard Leo's tireless dedication to the the judicial theory of Pecunia Omnia Vincit.
When photos of Alito doing coke off at the Skull & Bones Rager '25 surface, or ole' Clarence adds a second story addition to his Walmart World Tour motorhome, we'll have to start talking about who, exactly, enforces this.
And what's this world coming to if we don't feel like we can trust the scout's-honor signature of a Justice of the Yew-nited States Soo-preme Court.
As for me, the signature of several of these fine people I could name, together with $3.00 lawful currency, might get me a cup of coffee somewhere.
I am, however, willing to let them prove me wrong and even to see them get into the spirit of the thing by not just faithfully reporting all their questionable shit, but going so far as to refrain from doing it. Not something I expect them to take me up on.
When I skimmed that I thought you were saying Skull and Bones has Roger Taney's skull which they traditionally do coke off of.
It's not a code of "ethics" if unethical conduct is still allowed, even if frowned upon.
Ah, but in DC currency the behind-the-back frown of a fellow justice is far, far more serious than even the sternest expression of Susan Collins's concern. So there's that.
The threat of the finger wag is unparalleled.
It's "codish".
"A Justice should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Regulations on Gifts now in effect."
The use of "should" instead of "shall" gives the game away. A majority of the Supremes are corrupt hypocriticals who know what is right and what they should do, but don't give a dam.
The single best admonition in this precious document says that justices _should_ "keep informed" about their own personal financial interests and "make a reasonable effort to keep informed" about their spouse's and resident minor children's personal financial interests (p. 3).
Just, wow. Some world these people live in and take as normal-- forget that posturing about Walmart parking lots. They're rolling in it so much that they just can't be expected to keep up with where their money is? Their spouses maintain completely separate financial lives? Their minor kids have major investments?
Salt of the earth.
"A Justice should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts" Note these are alwyers and are fully aware tht the word should means it is completely optional to do it.
"For some time [since 1991], all Justices have agreed to comply with the statute governing financial disclosure, and the undersigned Members of the Court each individually reaffirm that commitment." Thi flat out ignores that Justice Thomas has repeatedly been found violating this statute and a reaffirmation to ignoring this statute is exactly what he is agreeing to.