To be a Supreme Court Justice, should one not be required to demonstrate the ability to discern the difference between what is legal, what is moral, and what is the right thing to do to avoid the appearance of bias?
Of course. And the way to enforce such a requirement is for the politicians nominating and confirming the justices to use it as one of their criteria for doing so.
It’s human nature to do whatever is not prohibited by law. True altruism is rare. There need to be laws that apply to ALL elected/appointed officials, including judges. Why they have gotten a pass all this time is beyond my comprehension.
It is very difficult for me comprehend how a sitting Supreme Court justice does not understand or see that receiving nearly half a million dollars in “hospitalities” from one individual who is not a family member may be legal but not right and clearly can be viewed as being “owned.”
I think something @Dinsdale posted in the Clarence Thomas thread is worth quoting here:
And sir, that is what I’m talking about. What is the point of taking those Ethics classes, passing the tests etc… but failing them in real life? Does it not have something to do with there not being any consequences for violating them? How is it that our legislative representatives mussed that one? Why isn’t there a stated law that says, if you do this, this will happen to you.
You don’t get paid to fail an ethics class, but in real life, failing ethics can be quite lucrative.
He can be impeached for it. It has happened before and while Justice Chase was acquitted other Federal judges have been removed.
He knows there isn’t a chance on Earth or anywhere else that he’d get removed from office so long as Democrats have West Virginia’s Democrat and Arizona’s Democrat turned Independent.
Part of the issue too is that in contradiction to your thread title, he is not a judge; he is a Justice. I believe judges can lose their position by being disbarred (correct me if I’m wrong) however Justices can be anyone and don’t have to be a lawyer so even if he were disbarred for ethical violations then he would till keep his job as a SCOTUS Justice.
Thomas got through a brutal confirmation and since then has given a giant finger to the US. His wife is a lobbiest and sure looks knee deep in the January 6 insurrection. The above $500k was only ONE single vacation out of a 20+ year record of freebies from a “friend.” Thomas has taken millions if not tens of millions from his billionaire “friend” and add-on his wife’s take. There is a concept of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, which obviously didn’t take in Thomas’ case.
There is no code of ethics in US corporate or government where this could be considered sane. A big corporation like Microsoft would fire your ass in a heartbeat for a fraction of this type of abuse. Sarbanes-Oxley would likely come into play.
The Supremes should have term limits. Maybe 20 years? And terms should expire every 4 years in the middle of a presidential term so every President can run one or two through the confirmation process.
No wonder people are losing faith in the Supreme Court. For me it started when the Supremes selected George Bush. Follow by campaign finance laws and other egregious legislation from the bench to overturned settled case law of Row v Wade. And Thomas blatantly has his hand out to the highest bidder. And he is a cheap ass bargain thinking a private plane ride is worth selling his sole.
Impeachment required two-thirds of the Senators present. A majority will not suffice.
He could still be disbarred, but as I understand it, that would just be unusual and awkward, not necessarily a statutory block for him to work as a Justice.
So pretty much what I said.
Could you explain what you mean by this? An executive from Microsoft would be fired for taking a trip paid for by a rich person?
Just a quick observation that “moral righteousness” and “legal ethics” are two different things, and sometimes diametrically opposite.
Actually, there are few ethical requirements of attorneys that could reasonably be said to be even amoral, much less immoral. Following legal ethics won’t make you a bad person; it’s just that that leaves room for attorneys to be very immoral without egregiously violating the ethics rules.
And how many of these “friends” does he have?
This speaks to the general lack of utility of ethics courses. And it’s not just lawyers - it’s questionable whether medical school courses in ethics do much good.
I’ve noticed that often, when state medical boards discipline physicians for clearly illegal or immoral behavior like running opioid pill mills or taking sexual advantage of patients, penalties often include such things as taking ethics and medical jurisprudence courses. Somehow I get the feeling that won’t do a hell of a lot of good.
In my opinion, the job itself only requires the ability to discern the law. Supreme Court Justices are not bound by any external code of ethics, and I would argue the Constitution prohibits the imposition of any such code, except that they may be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” as interpreted by Congress.
~Max