Supreme Court Ethics Crisis - Prominent Retired Judge Calls for Ethics Rules for SCOTUS justices

[ck4829]

WASHINGTON — A prominent conservative former federal judge joined a chorus of legal experts from across the political spectrum on Tuesday in calling on Congress to enact new ethical standards for Supreme Court justices, after a series of revelations about the justices’ undisclosed gifts, luxury travel and property deals.

The statement by Judge J. Michael Luttig, a retired appeals court judge revered by some conservatives, came as the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee prepared to hold a hearing on Supreme Court ethics. Pressure has mounted among progressives for a stricter code of conduct for the justices, the nation’s highest judges, who are appointed to lifetime terms and are bound by few disclosure requirements.

Congress “indisputably has the power under the Constitution” to “enact laws prescribing the ethical standards applicable to the nonjudicial conduct and activities of the Supreme Court of the United States,” Judge Luttig said in a written statement presented to the Judiciary Committee.

The judge, who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and was close to being nominated for the Supreme Court, was among several legal experts across the political spectrum who released testimony before a hearing scheduled for Tuesday in which they supported strengthening ethical rules at the court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/02/us/politics/supreme-court-ethics-judiciary-hearing.html

It's time to come together as a country and rein this corruption in.

[SheilaAnn]

1. No lifetime appointment, ten years, review. If review is good, carry on for another ten or if

something unethical should come up, then "NO."

[lindysalsagal]

2. Amen!

[NullTuples]

3. How about laws? The GOP has shown that rules & traditions are no better than thoughts and prayers

Actual laws, that regulate the behaviors of the top echelons of our governments. Laws that treat top officials as government employees with the same ethics considerations all other employees must abide by, rather than treat them like quasi royalty.

[erronis]

4. Yes. I think they should follow laws - perhaps with SCOTUS-specific clauses.

[raising2moredems]

5. They also need to nail down hard and fast recusal rules

Tis utterly ridiculous when judges who a) donate money, b) own stock (including large holdings by family), c) sit on board of directors (think a judge on the board of an adoption agency) can be impartial?. Probably a few more I've forgotten. And many of the rats claim to know what the Founding Fathers were thinking - I think not.