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.”

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Unfortunately, that’s extremely unlikely. The last Supreme Court Justice to be impeached was Samuel Chase in 1805. He was acquitted and continued to serve until his death.

      They remain seated until they choose to step down or die. The average Justice serves for 16 years, but have served for as long as 34 years. Trump fucked a generation in one term.

        • DaleGribble88@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yes, but the political blowback from both parties would likely not be worth it. Especially because Republicans would immediately add double the amount Biden would, and it would very likely quickly grow into full bore shenanigans.

          • Pfeffy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            We can’t fight back ever because the other side might fight back even more. So let’s just capituate now. Story of Democrats my entire life. At best.

            • cmbabul@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              I’ve been convinced we were verging on a civil conflict of some kind for quite a while and terrified of the potential outcomes of that conflict, but I reached a point recently where I’m increasingly afraid that the consequences might actually be worse if there isn’t one. Our current system wasn’t designed to get major overhauls, we were supposed to make incremental changes to it as we went along but that hasn’t happened in 50 years

      • jorp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s like they don’t realize that having non-violent ways of affecting change are important because otherwise people will turn to violent ways after a certain point.

      • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        7 months ago

        Copy/paste response. You do a lot of that with your comments. Like there is a set list of comments you respond from.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Again, it’s the same reply to the same comment to the same post in politics. Is it wrong to have the same opinion when I see the same comment only minutes later? You made the initial comment that I replied to in both places.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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.

      • timespace
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        I…what? Do you mean lost the popular vote?

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yes. That’s how democracy is supposed to work: the candidate whom the most people want to win, wins.

          • timespace
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              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.

              • timespace
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                And yet, you’re wrong aren’t you?

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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.

    • timespace
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m as anti Trump as anyone, but I have some bad news for you - he was legitimately voted into office as the President and his appointments are therefore legitimate.

      What McConnell did in blocking Obama’s appointment should be criminal. That BS needs to change.

      • irreticent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        he was legitimately voted into office as the President

        …by the electoral college. Remember, he lost the popular vote.

        • timespace
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Which is, unfortunately, how we elect the president in this country. He won.

        • PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          People keeping saying this like it means he didn’t win.

          He won the game according to the games rules.

          The games rules being unfair is a completely separate conversation