New bill would require Supreme Court to create a code of conduct amid recent controversies

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Last edited Wed Apr 26, 2023, 01:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: ABC

Two Senate lawmakers have unveiled bipartisan legislation to require the Supreme Court create a code of conduct amid recent controversies surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas.

The high court is the only branch of government that operates without a code of conduct. Senators Angus King, I-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, on Wednesday introduced a bill to change that.

"A healthy democracy requires trust: trust in systems, trust in institutions, and trust in leaders. Americans deserve to have confidence that every part of their government -- especially the highest court in the land -- is acting in an ethical manner," King said in a statement.

Murkowski, too, said it's "critical the public has full faith that their institutions are functioning, including the judicial branch."

The legislation would force the court to create a code of conduct, post it publicly online and appoint an individual tasked with handling any complaints of potential violations.



Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/new-bill-require-supreme-court-create-code-conduct/story?id=98870332

---

Link to tweet

[bluestarone]

1. THIS could get interesting.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Good.

Let's hope they can pick up 10 GOP Senators for it. Not sure how it will fare in the loony House though.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. New Judicial Ethics bills proposed

Link to tweet

BREAKING: The US Senate has just unveiled a BIPARTISAN bill, that if signed into law would require the US Supreme Court to create and implement a new code of conduct for all justices.

Details of the 'Supreme Court Code of Conduct Act':

- The bill proposes that the Supreme Court implement a code of conduct within a year of its enactment and publish it on the Court's website

- It mandates the Court to designate a person to handle complaints regarding violations of the new code and give the Court the authority to conduct investigations to determine if any justice or staff member has violated federal laws or codes of conduct affecting the administration of justice.

- The legislation allows the Court to draft its code of conduct to protect the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches.

- The bill sponsors claim that the Supreme Court's declining approval ratings and public concerns about its impartiality have necessitated the legislation. The proposed Act aims to address these concerns by ensuring the Court's transparency, independence, and fairness in upholding the law.

There is no reason that I can think of why this bill should not immediately be voted in and signed into law!

[Polybius]

4. They could simply find it unconstitutional

They have the power to do so.

[melm00se]

8. Not so sure on that

Congress has the ability to establish the number of justices, the scope and jurisdiction of the Court. Additionally, there is precedent for judicial codes of ethics at the federal level. Additionally, Congress could cut off the Court's funding (in FY24 their budget request is $9.1 billion) and there is zero that the Court could do (but that is the nuclear option).

[Polybius]

17. Let's just say it's challenged

What happens if they rule it can't stand?

[melm00se]

20. Impeachment is an option

n/t

[Polybius]

22. Yeah, but removal takes 67 votes in the Senate

And suppose the vote is 9-0?

[melm00se]

23. Federal institutions

tend to get annoyed when they are ignored and if the refuses to develop a code of ethics and then gives Congress the big finger when they pass one, you will probably see a bipartisan action and an impeachment, trial and removal.

All 3 branches, however, realize the threat of an open conflict between the 3 and cooler heads would more than likely prevail and an agreement would be reached.

Of course, the People could flex their ultimate power, give all 3 branches the big finger and ratify an Amendment that settles the issue quite permanently.

[Paper Roses]

18. Do I read this correctly? THe Supreme Court budget for FY24 is 9.1 Billion?

Someone please tell me why this is correct, justified and why?

[melm00se]

19. Technically it is the Judiciary budget

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FY%202024%20Congressional%20Budget%20Summary.pdf#:~:text=The%20Judiciary's%20fiscal%20year%20(FY,%24796.0%20million%20in%20mandatory%20appropriations.

[Irish_Dem]

5. The SC can overturn the law or allow it and then ignore it.

[peppertree]

6. +1

They're the most bananas thing in our republic.

Second only to Flawrida, of course.

[Irish_Dem]

10. Yep. The entire GOP power structure is only governed by the honor system.

And they have no honor, so here we are.
Corruption city.

[rurallib]

7. Why would congress trust SCOTUS to create a code of conduct

without some kind of guidelines? What would be the penalties for violation?

[republianmushroom]

9. meaning what if it is not followed ?

The legislation would force the court to create a code of conduct, post it publicly online and appoint an individual tasked with handling any complaints of potential violations.
However, it doesn't lay out what those rules should be -- instead giving the court the power to enact its own guidelines.

More feel good ??

[Sanity Claws]

11. Not enough

I wouldn't trust them to create the code of conduct or to enforce it if adopted. What about taking the code of conduct or laws already applicable to other federal judges and enact it as law? Hard to complain if it already applies to other judges. But how to enforce?

[LymphocyteLover]

12. does it have any teeth though? What's the punishment for breaking the code?

[Novara]

13. Congress can REQUIRE that SCOTUS create a code of conduct ...

... but they can't write the rules themselves. And I don't know if there's any mechanism if the law passes but the SCOTUS refuses to do so.

But I can see it now: the Rs will all vote against it.

[3825-87867]

14. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says

we can't make new laws or rules, requirements or punishments to or for any or all justices of the SCOTUS even if they serve for life.

I'm sure a few new legal ideas, punishments, penalties, etc. pertaining to their so-called exclusivity can be imagined. Maybe some that will make future SCOTUS'uns think twice about becoming one.

Reinterpret that, Alito!

[FakeNoose]

21. Exactly right - it's legislation written by Congress, approved by the Potus

Why on earth would SCOTUS be allowed to write their "ethics" rules? They've already shown their deficiency in the ethics department. There needs to be a balance of power, not one group writing their own rules.

[Hekate]

15. Good. It's a good start.

[bucolic_frolic]

16. Meaningless with no teeth

These clowns need rules, oversight, fines, term limits. We need to break up the stack-the-court cabals by increasing throughput in a bipartisan manner.

[Cha]

24. You did that, FW Unethical SC Judges.

TY, LMPV

[The Grand Illuminist]

25. Won't pass the House

nt