Should there be some form of ethics oversight for the Supreme Court?

Should there be some form of ethics oversight for the Supreme Court? Whether that oversight falls to Congress of the Executive is irrelevant at this point: the question is should there be ethical oversight?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/17/justice-scalias-death-and-questions-about-who-pays-for-supreme-court-justices-to-visit-remote-resorts/

Comments

Jason ON said…
Toni Antonelli, huh?
James Jackson said…
There is ethical oversight. The members of the court are empowered to judicially impugn each other. If a group of them get together to censure one it's oversight. They often argue amongst themselves not just in writing but also in chambers
David Simmons said…
What punishment can be given to someone with a lifetime appointment? It would just be free advertisement that they can be bought.
Jason ON said…
James Jackson, when you work day in and day out with the same 8 people, for possibly decades, do you really think there is judicial impunity going on? It can create hostility and affect how voting occurs on future cases.

There are checks and balances in our government, but aside from being nominated by the executive and vetted by the Senate, there are no checks on judicial power. Should there be?
rosco dawg said…
Jason ON there is a thing called the constitution they are supposed to abide by but the keep cutting away at it. So yes they need to answer to us (We The People) and stop eating away at at what our country was founded on.
Jason ON said…
rosco dawg, who is the "they" in your scenario?
James Jackson said…
Jason ON​ there's a very good legal reason why the bench is so unassailable. Sometimes judges have to make unpopular decisions. If there was any recourse other than another judge's censure they would not be able to do their jobs.
Jason ON said…
James Jackson, I understand that. However, you didn't answer my question. Should there be some sort of ethical oversight for Justices?

Take Scalia, for example. He was friends and sporting buddies with people who's cases he was judging. Can he truly be impartial? Maybe, but probably not.
James Jackson said…
My answer was no... it's more complicated than a yes or no, but no.
Jason ON said…
So, you don't believe an organization that can single handily change the course of laws and policy in the USA shouldn't be bound by some form of formal ethical oversight? The executive have ethical oversight, as does congress.
James Jackson said…
Like I said there is ethical oversight. Other judges, even in lower courts can disagree or even censure justices of the supreme court. In order to do their jobs there have to be a lot of barriers to judicial influence. Allowing some third party to censure or in any other way affect the court would completely destroy the system of jurisprudence.
Jason ON said…
You believe lower court judges censure higher court justices?
Jason ON said…
Evidence? I don't recall anything like that all from my class of the Judicial branch of the government.
James Jackson said…
Anyone can censure anyone.  Not only that as Article I & II state they can be impeached.
James Jackson said…
Article I sec 3: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

Article II sec 4: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


Or, instead of arguing moronic points you could just visit the SCOTUS FAQs page: http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx


http://bfy.tw/4JvI
Jason ON said…
Neither of those articles addresses how to remove censure SCotUS judges.

And there's nothing in that SCotUS FAQs about judges censuring themselves or other manners in which they are ethically held accountable.

But hey, lets look at a real answer, shall we?

https://law.stanford.edu/publications/ethical-oversight-for-the-justices/

Unlike any other judge, each individual who sits on the Supreme Court has unreviewable authority to determine whether he or she should withdraw from hearing a case for ethical reasons. The governing federal statute requires recusal whenever a justice’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” But it provides no oversight mechanism, short of impeachment, if a justice unreasonably declines to withdraw.

So, should there some form of ethical oversight for SCotUS justices?
James Jackson said…
"Neither of those articles addresses how to remove censure SCotUS judges."

Impeachment removes them... do you not read?

"And there's nothing in that SCotUS FAQs about judges censuring themselves or other manners in which they are ethically held accountable."

No, because you were being dense as to impeachment for that reply... as for censure:

Censure is a fancy word for signing a letter of admonition with your name. Any person or any group can make a formal complaint about anyone else.

Further Article III specifically makes it so SCOTUS justices aren't immune from prosecution for any crime, hence they can even more formally be censured by a lower court passing a judgement against them.

http://bfy.tw/4JvU
Jason ON said…
Fair enough. I was mentally applying a formal punishment along with the term censure

But that just proves my point: there is no ethical oversight for SCotUS justices. Not in the Constitution and not via legislation or decree since it was ratified. 

The Constitution does outline how impeachments are handled, but doesn't state what's an impeachable offense regarding SCotUS justices. Is it reserved for treason? Or can a SCotUS justice be impeached for missing too many days of work?

As I've already shown (twice), there are no formal ethical oversights for justices, which means they can act with impunity, as Scalia did habitually.

Should a justice be allowed to give a speech on Biblical supremacy and then be allowed to sit in judgement over religious liberty cases?

Should a justice be able to accept large gifts from millionaire and billionaires and then sit in judgement over those same people or their companies?

Should a justice who publicly states she or he believes certain types of people are an abomination be allowed to hold court over those types of people? Such as an overtly racist justice? Or maybe, like Scalia, who thought gay people were an affront to his religion and yet he sat in judgement over same sex rights cases?

The question was, and always has been, should there be a formal ethical oversight for SCotUS justices?
Jason ON said…
So, you believe a justice who doesn't believe women should be allowed day jobs should be forced to recuse him/herself from cases involving workplace discrimination?
I believe the only law that governs the three branches of government is the constitution. the founders set up the supreme court as it is, on purpose for all the good reasons already listed. no law can be made by congress that would change how the supreme court operates, as it would be unconstitutional. supreme court justices can and do recuse themselves. For example Justice Kagan recused herself in 2012. As for the other justices (or congress) being able to censure a justice... they can do that.
Jason ON said…
kirk sticken​, then you believe a very naïve world view. Many of the functions and actions of the three different branches of government are not found in the Constitution, but are either self proscribed or designated by law.

Justice Kagan has indeed recused herself, on many occasions, only proving she's an ethical person. However, Scalia never recused himself, even when he had a personal interest in the case or had spoken about the issues publicly. A judge is to remain impartial if their judgements are to be considered valid. You really don't think there needs to be ethical oversight for lifetime appointments?
Jason ON
correct: the supreme court does not need additional ethical oversight. you are trying to make a case out of smoke and mirrors, Scalia did indeed recuse himself when he felt it necessary., proving (in your words) that he is an ethical justice.
"Scalia recused himself from Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004),"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia
Jason ON said…
By your very link, Scalia also refused to recuse himself when his buddy was on trial: "Scalia refused to recuse himself from Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia (2005), a case concerning whether Vice President Dick Cheney could keep secret the membership of an advisory task force on energy policy. Scalia was asked to recuse himself because he had gone on a hunting trip with various persons including Cheney, during which he traveled one way on Air Force Two.*

It showed favoritism.
James Jackson said…
And apparently not enough favoritism that the Chief Justice, nor any of the other Justices demanded his recusal after his explanation of why he didn't need to recuse himself.

Monday morning quarterbacking is great for some things, but really the SCOTUS has a high enough bar of entry and a hard enough job that they take seriously enough that it doesn't need another layer of people telling them how they get it wrong.  Let the 4th estate worry about it, and understand that when it comes to serious infractions there's still legal recourse.
Jason ON so, since we have established that Scalia was an ethical Justice, the cases where he chose not to recuse himself show that he decided he could maintain his impartiality and treat the evidence and the law objectively. All judges do this by the way. Were there any other of the 9 judges voicing opinions in that case? Did Scalia have six other accomplices? In fact you have no evidence of any ethical violations at all do you?
"The Court ruled 7–2 that the lower appeals court had acted "prematurely" and sent the case back to the court.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheney_v._United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Columbia
Jason ON said…
James Jackson, even the justices can't force other justices to recuse themselves from a case.

And it's not "Monday morning" quarterbacking - it's asking a valid question.

And no, kirk sticken​, we didn't establish that Scalia was an ethical justice, we established that he recused himself - once. And didn't recuse himself multiple times. We don't know that Scala's biases didn't influence his voting, we do know, however, that he and only he, believes it didn't.

Do I have evidence of any specific ethical violations? No. But that's the point of my initial question: if there is no ethical oversight, then we can't know if there's a question of ethical impropriety. It's all guesswork. Very few people admit to wrongdoing, even judges. And since you brought it up, yes judges have biases, which is one of the reasons why congresses across the country have legislated the legal outcomes of most cases, taking the opinion of the judges out of the running. And, unlike SCotUS justices, each and every judge from circuit court down to town magistrates have ethical codes by which they can be held accountable. Supreme Court justices have none. There is no oversight. No boards, no ethics panels, no nothing. Hence the question I've asked: should there be?
James Jackson said…
Monday morning quarter backing is what you're trying desperately to argue in favor of... even though there's absolutely no need for it.
Jason ON there is ethical oversight. they include: the chief justice of the supreme court; the other justices of the supreme court; congress (which is in charge of the budget for the supreme court); investigative reporters; and well meaning but misguided people like you. the fact that no one had to agree with scalia on recusal is just the way it is supposed to be: this is what judicial independence looks like. you don't have to like it, but you can't change it.
Jason ON said…
James Jackson, if you believe that then you believe all judges are Monday morning quarterbacking, especially justices like Scalia who are strict Constitutionalists.

But no, questioning the operation if government isn't Monday morning quarterbacking, it's analysis.

Popular posts from this blog

I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend.