Do you have a cite for these claims?
Judiciary personnel in Washington, D.C., provide an array of assessment and support services. The AO maintains an integrated management and financial planning system, with rigorous financial controls governing budget formulation and execution. In addition to coordinating audits and conducting program reviews, the AO regularly surveys court operations and judicial workloads and assesses operational effectiveness and economy. National standards and guidelines are promulgated in an official administrative policy manual, and the AO prepares supplemental court guidance materials. Every six months, the AO reports to the Judicial Conference Committee on Audits and Administrative Office Accountability on all recent financial audits, program reviews, special investigations, and prosecution referrals. The Federal Judicial Center (FJC) and the AO offer in-person and web-based training for chief judges and unit executives on their management and oversight responsibilities. In addition, the director of the AO has a statutory duty to “supervise all administrative matters” in the courts.
It’s a classic tactic employed by politicians across the political spectrum. But one does have an expectation that the judiciary should at least aspire to be above this kind of chicanery.
Stranger
The Canadian Judicial Council, composed of the chief justices of all the federally-appointed courts, has issued guidelines for judicial conduct:
Anyoine can file a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council about the conduct of any federally appointed judge:
The CJC is required by statute to investigate any complaint and, if the initial investigation warrants it, expand the investigation to a full inquiry in front of a panel of the Judicial Council.
If the Judicial Council recommends removal, it then goes to the two houses of Parliament to consider.
The judge you mentioned who is under investigation by the Judicial Council is Justice Russell Brown of the Supreme Court of Canada. While the investigation is under way, Justice Brown is not sitting on any cases before the SCC, and has not been participating in any cases that were heard prior to the complaint and are released while the complaint is pending.
Which claims? The facts I mentioned about Thomas and his wife are a matter of record and most of them documented all over this board. Crow’s neo-Nazi proclivities were cited right in this thread The question at hand is the comparison between Merchan and Thomas. Fox news ran a blaring headline implying bias by Merchan, complete with quote by Alan Dershowitz that although the amount of his donation is tiny, it “warrants further inquiry” and Trump and his acolytes insist Merchan must recuse himself or the case be moved to a different venue. Has Thomas ever recused himself from a case in which he has vested ideological or monetary interests? Is there any chance in hell that he ever will? Or will he just continue accepting bribes and (coincidentally, I’m sure) ruling in favour of his benefactors?
The House and Senate have Ethics Committees charged with policing adherence to their chamber’s ethics rules, as well as answering questions and providing guidance to members and their staff regarding how to comply with ethics requirements. I’m not sure that there’s really an equivalent for the federal judiciary.
I don’t know anything about Mr. Crow. It is certainly odd to have a totalitarian garden and suspect memorabilia. By itself, it is not definitive proof of extreme views, however.
Judiciary personnel in Washington, D.C., provide an array of assessment and support services. The AO maintains an integrated management and financial planning system, with rigorous financial controls governing budget formulation and execution. In addition to coordinating audits and conducting program reviews, the AO regularly surveys court operations and judicial workloads and assesses operational effectiveness and economy. National standards and guidelines are promulgated in an official administrative policy manual, and the AO prepares supplemental court guidance materials. Every six months, the AO reports to the Judicial Conference Committee on Audits and Administrative Office Accountability on all recent financial audits, program reviews, special investigations, and prosecution referrals. The Federal Judicial Center (FJC) and the AO offer in-person and web-based training for chief judges and unit executives on their management and oversight responsibilities. In addition, the director of the AO has a statutory duty to “supervise all administrative matters” in the courts.
Stranger
Well, thank goodness he’s not in a position where he has to read and interpret complex rules for a living.
He gave a public tour, which was preceded by an interview. At least ostensibly, his collection is to preserve history, and to remember its lessons.
The collection, it should be noted, isn’t just limited to nazi stuff (which, best as I can tell, is a signed copy of Mein Kampf and two paintings done by Hitler). It really is an impressive collection of things.
Right?!
That’s interesting, but training judges about “management and oversight” and “supervising all administrative matters” is a different animal than advising on or policing ethics compliance. But it did lead me to the actual relevant information: apparent the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct publishes formal advisory opinions on ethical issues that are frequently raised or have broad application.
There is no evidence that Thomas has ever attempted to ”read and interpret complex rules”. His view of the Constitution is highly reductionist to the point that it is kind of surprising that he hasn’t viewed his own judgements as only affording 60% of an opinion that might as well be rendered by someone else.
Stranger
Scalia told him what to do at least 40% of the time.
I’m sure you meant 3/5ths of the time.
No. Thomas gets 3/5ths. Scalia gets 2/5ths.
Apparently the LA Times originally reported Thomas was pulling this BS which supposedly led to him stop disclosing it.
Just to make clear for any non-lawyers, non-federal employees, non-judges.
In law school, EVERY student has to take a course on ethics.
Every aspiring lawyer has to pass a test on ethics, and be cleared by some panel on things ethical.
Every lawyer has to pay annual dues to a a state organization enforcing professional responsibility, and present character references to be admitted to practice in front of certain courts.
Every federal employee receives annual training and reminds on ethics.
I’m not sure the training for Article 3 judges, but there are accepted codes of Judicial ethics.
This guy was an Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and headed the EEOC, two positions/entities that were somewhat concerned with impropriety AND the appearance of impropriety.
But when appointed to the highest court of the land, he figures, “Nah, I guess all I have to do is ask a couple of co-workers. And even tho I’m a War-Mart kinda guy, there’s NO WAY ANYONE could think anything untoward about these gifts!”
This is just about as far as you could get from a well-intentioned inexperienced person being tripped up by some obscure technicality.
Give it a few more days and we’ll probably find out Walmart gave him that RV.
No matter what Democrats do, Republicans are going to expand the court the next time they have motive and opportunity to do so. They will claim that simply by talking about it, Democrats have provoked them into self-defense. Just like they held Scalia’s seat open for 13 months because “election year”, and then rammed through RBG’s replacement a week before the election because “oh I thought you guys wanted nominations in an election year, har har”.
Repubs will say "Democrats threatened to pack the court to 13 members, so we have no choice but to expand it to 27 seats and fill them all with FedSoc members who are under the age of 30.
Precedent is dead (or more accurately the new precedent is “do what thou wilt”). Democrats are stupid if they insist on following norms that Republicans cheerfully shred. “We’re better than them” doesn’t work if you let “them” lock you out of power forever.
Stranger
They will have control of the court for several years. Why should they alter it?