Enforced how? The honor system?
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
153 points (94.7% liked)
News
23268 readers
3642 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The policy, agreed to by all nine justices, does not appear to impose any significant new requirements and leaves compliance entirely to each justice
Nothing. They did absolutely nothing. No new rules and they can just not follow them if they want. Toothless and pointless pandering.
This was always going to be toothless. There is no legal method for the Chief Justice or any associate Justice or anyone on staff to enforce compliance. All it could ever do is be a canary in the coal mine for impeachment.
And unfortunately, besides impeachment, I'm not sure there's any other tool the Congress has to enforce compliance or punishment onto the Supreme Court either. Unless they're willing to push through a Constitutional amendment.
I've heard people say that they can bind another co-equal branch of government with normal legislation because they do the same to the executive branch, but ultimately that's generally in cooperation with the judicial branch. In some situations the judicial branch has sided with the executive branch, such as executive privilege. In the case of Congress directly trying to impose this on the judiciary the Supreme Court could and probably would strike it down. The only help the executive could offer is of the "They've made their decision now let them enforce it." sort. Ultimately that's living in a Constitutional crisis and at that point why do any of the principles behind our government matter?
The only other option I see would be passing a code of ethics and then using their Constitutional power to shield that law from the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. However that's shaky as a state could sue over it and automatically get the case in under the court's original jurisdiction which cannot be limited.
The Supreme Court has adopted its first code of ethics - https://one.npr.org/i/1212836705:1212836706
This article does a pretty good job of going over the important parts of Article 2 of the US judicial code and talks about how Congress could regulate the Supreme Court as it does all other Federal courts. It would just take appointing an inspector general to enforce article 2 that already exist for lower courts.
The regulation would still maintain an independent decisional authority in the same vein is how they regulate the number of justices currently on the Supreme Court. The regulation itself would have nothing to do with the way that the justices reach their decisions, but would only cover their conduct outside of the court. The law is already in place, Congress just hasn't put the mechanism in place to enforce it.
That being said, they can't even pass resolutions in order to stop the time change which has near unanimous support across the population and all our other branches of government. It's my firm belief that the opposite of pro is con, so the opposite of progress must be...
A code without teeth is not a code. It's just an idea.
It's more of a suggestion.
It’s not even a suggestion. It’s an appeasement hoping it gets people off their back and looking the other way. I’d be very, very surprised if they actually believed in this and felt it suggested better behaviour, considering it’s being implemented after they got caught.
A kindly, quiet, soft-spoken suggestion.
We need a DOJ probe into wide-spread bribery in the court already. Charges should be filed wherever appropriate.
"Undisclosed gifts"
Calling them gifts makes it seem like someone got a pair of socks. Clarence Thomas was given 38 vacations, 26 private jet flights, and a hell of a lot more from multiple different billionaires. These are bribes that are bigger in value than most American's yearly salaries.
There is no enforcement mechanism. This is an ethics suggestion, not a code. Ridiculous.
Not enforceable, not retrospective and not policed. Time for laws.
I can already hear Barbossa
“the code is more what you'd call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.”
If anyone wants the source document. Here you go. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/code-of-conduct-for-justices.aspx
Also , reads like accepting bribes was misunderstanding. We're clearing it up now with no penalty for next time it happens
I'll believe it when one of them resigns
We're past that point, in my opinion. Bribery is illegal. We should be conducting criminal investigations and filing appropriate charges at this point.
Let me guess which ones have already figured out ways to skirt whatever new rules they are proposing.
No need to "skirt" the code. It has no teeth at all. They can violate it all they want without any accountability.
Fair point.
Breaking: Clarence Thomas rules November 13th constitutionally guaranteed 'Opposite Day' according to review of the ^mumble^ amendment.
Name a time a politician has been given a "gift" worth mentioning without an ulterior motive.
There is no such thing as "gifts" in politics. They're bribes.
Starting....Monday. No, not that Monday, *next *Monday!
They are fivne with implementing it right away since it has no teeth at all.