Ok. So do you think SCOTUS judges should avoid the appearance of impropriety?
Not necessarily.
Yes. I concede the point, and in fact I note that legislation was recently introduced in the House to make the federal Code applicable to SCOTUS (which appears to raise a separation of powers issue, but that’s another thread).
That doesn’t preclude their self-imposed and self-policed observation of a written code of conduct. I had assumed that the Supes had applied the federal code to themselves.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Not necessarily.
[/QUOTE]
Really? You don’t think our highest court should be held to the same standard that every other judge in the country must adhere to?
I don’t.
As has been pointed out, a district judge may recuse himself, safe in the knowledge that another district judge will be named to preside over the trial, and that a superior court can always review the result.. A circuit judge may recuse himself, knowing another judge will be drawn to make up the panel, or that the en banc group will simply be missing one judge of many – and that a superior court can always review their result.
The Supreme Court has only nine members, and no superior court to save them. They cannot be held to the same standard as every other judge.
This is not to say they should not be held to SOME standard. But their position is unique; their standard must be unique as well.
Maybe because of that unique position, Supreme Court justices should be paid more and they and their spouses should be barred from having any financial ties to any potential litigants.
The SCOTUS would rule that unconstitutional, so you better make that an amendment.
I’m not saying they should recuse themselves based on the same… “weight” of apparent impropriety. I’m saying they should be held to the same standard. As I pointed out earlier, the competing interests which must be balanced are obviously different for SCOTUS.
It’s difficult to imagine that kind of language surviving under current equal protection law.
And again quoting Reinhardt:
(emphasis in original)
Does anyone believe that?
Let’s take this back a step. Forget about appearances.
Bricker and John, do you believe that a Supreme Court justice should avoid actual impropriety in their conduct? Because the same code of conduct covers both actual and apparent impropriety, and if the latter doesn’t apply to the Justices (as it doesn’t), then the former doesn’t apply as well, right?
So they can conduct themselves as improperly as they want, and that’s okay?
I think a judge’s wife shilling for money based on her ability to influence people in power would lead a reasonable person to question that arrangement. If, for example, I were a party in a case, and I found that the other party paid Thomas’ wife a lot of money to influence people in power to support the law I am appealing, well, I wouldn’t be very happy. I consider myself a reasonable person, and while I wouldn’t be able to conclude impropriety, the thought would do more than pass through my mind.
But not Reinhardt and his wife? Why not?
Look, I have a theory. Tell me if I’m close.
The ACLU fights for people’s rights, and so even if there is some undue influence there, it’s for a good cause.
There is a procedure for impeachment and removal. I think that, if they are wise, they should avoid behavior that would trigger that procedure.
Gonna tell us why?
Impeachment is a paper tiger. Neither party has the votes to do it unilaterally and at this point a Justice could bludgeon a kitten to death in the middle of the street whilst buggering a 10-year old boy and, as long as he/she was seen as a reliable vote, one side or the other would refuse to impeach.
It was an open ended question-- one man’s impropriety is another man’s “no big deal”. I’m sure that, in the justices’ minds, they do try to avoid the appearance of impropriety. It’s just that some people don’t agree with that assessment. But the fact is, only Congress can be the judge, and they seem to be OK with things. I don’t recall any serious attempts at impeachment recently.
And yet that is the only objective way we have to determine what behavior is not allowed. Sounds like you want to change the rules, which is fine. But I don’t see why they should abide by rules that don’t exist except as something some people wish for.
Because she isn’t shilling directly for money based on her contacts in government. As far as I know, the ACLU of SoCal does not use her in advertising, and does not claim to hold any special connections or ability to influence people in power. Nor does the ACLU offer a specific service based on donations. Any benefit to Reinhardt or his wife is indirect, specious, and lacking in credibility. In order for Reinhardt or his wife to benefit financially, her bosses would somehow have to deduce that specific donors are giving money based on her connection. They would then have to decide based on this information to give her a raise or a bonus. Basically it’s:
I have a suit that might come up before Reinhardt. If I promise a donation to the ACLU they might chance their stance to suit my position, and they might pressure their director to lean on her husband, who might listen to her bosses, and then may be able to influence her husband. Then the ACLU might give a bonus to Reinhardt’s wife, who might connect it with a specific case, and then maybe I have her/him in my pocket.
Contrast that with:
I pay Thomas’ wife to advise me and use her connections to help my cause. One of those connections might be her husband, who is a SCOTUS justice. And maybe some of that advice will be based on conversations she’s had with her husband. Whatever the truth is, both know a lot more money will be coming their way if based on her advice and counsel, I prevail in my legal case.
You’ve got me counselor. I’m just a libtard reflexively fighting against conservative influence. As opposed to you, a paragon of impartiality and virtue, who would never, ever attempt to draw a tenuous parallel with a liberal judge to obfuscate the argument.
And you didn’t exactly respond to my previous point. Do you, or do you not, think that SCOTUS judges should avoid the appearance of impropriety?
Whose standard of impropriety are you suggesting we use?
Justice Breyer, a peer but no ally in judicial temperament, is fine with Thomas not recusing himself. That’s not good enough for you?
I’m struggling to come up with a standard that doesn’t include your wife taking money for influencing prominent people in government.
With all due respect to Justice Breyer it doesn’t seem he’s clear on Mrs Thomas’ lobbying activities.
Practicing in a certain field is nowhere near taking money to influence people in government.
You’re not struggling very hard. “People” needn’t include members of the SCOTUS.
Puh-leeze. He’d have to be living under a rock to not be familiar with the stuff being complained about in this thread.