Senate Judiciary Committee members spar over ethical standards for Supreme Court

Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee want Congress to impose a code of conduct on the Supreme Court. CBS News legal contributor Jessica Levinson talks about the arguments for and against the request.

#news #supremecourt #ethics

[tyvqgld]

We should start calling them 'Kings and Queens, ' not judges

[jodiezaffke]

The judiciary did a lot of harm to women with their stand on Dobbs. It has been a horror show for women in states that are treating this as a simple abortion problem when it is not. We have people making medical decisions on something they know nothing about. The amount of pain and danger these states are inflicting is disgusting.

[redcomet]

The words “ethics” & “conservative judges” go together like oil and water

[peggychamberlain]

Durbin needs to check his own party on ethics!!

[bookertee]

Senate discussing ethics standards? LMAO 🤣 🤣 🤣 ! The Senate would be the last place to talk about ethics. Get serious.

[RAWGRIP]

The supreme Court should been neither left or right. just the facts and the interpretation of the law. Keep their political and personal life to themselves. Look at every new court case with a open neutral mind.

[janiekcarney]

I’ve lost all faith in the Supreme Court. And the Court System that Allows Trump to do whatever he wants to. But if it was us we would be in jail. So how can we stop this?

[stephenrickstrew]

A right wing court and ethics just don’t seem to mix ..

[planck]

Here in the Netherlands, all judges are overseen by college of deans. When they make it to furry or deviate too much from common legal practice (sent a single woman with children 2 yr. to jail over tickets as bad US example), they are sent in everlasting vacation as the SCOTUS already does so to speak.

[planck]

Forcing ethical standards for the SCOTUS has nothing to do with interfering with the Court.

[benlagging]

Clean your own house first Investigate yourself !!!! It should be against the law to benefit from insider trading. Investigate this as a first step for you to consider. Try Hunter for a start.

[gpop]

Try having hearings on your own colleges!

[rhmayer]

To me it's not that complicated. I understand the need for the separation of powers. But we also have the complimentary need for checks and balances between the three branches. If one branch of government is crashing - failing and losing legitimacy, and that branch of government is doing nothing to fix their crisis, then (in my view) the checks and balances supersedes the need for separation of powers. That is, the other branches of powers may be needed to step in to save the branch that is not saving itself. In the absence of the Supreme Court writing its own rules of ethics, the People (via The People's House, Congress) can and should write binding ethics rules and guidelines for them. [Note that this is not using 'checks and balances' to limit the other branch's powers, as is usually the case, but rather to reinforce and bolster that other branch's diminishing powers, by restoring legitimacy and establishing a stronger foundation for that branch.]
Regarding the idea or argument that "there can't really be a code of ethics at the highest court because there is no one else that could enforce those ethical rules but themselves anyway, so that precludes the need for those ethic rules to begin with, " this is a weak argument. We could easily come up with a plan such that the Supreme Court writes their own rules of ethics (subject to continuous editing as the SC sees fit) that should be made public (so far honoring the separation of powers), and that the Department of Justice be responsible for enforcement of their rules (yes, expanding the executive branches powers - but still under the purview of the judicial branch since the DOJ's case would be brought to the judicial branch). That is, that if there were sufficient evidence to launch an ethics violation investigation and indictment then the DOJ could do so. And there would need to be agreement that the case, if it were to go to trial, would be tried in a Federal district court and, if needed, appealed to a Federal appeals court - but could not be appealed higher. It could not be appealed to the Supreme Court itself (for obvious conflict of interest reasons). This seems to be, at least on the surface, a reasonable and well-compromised plan that addresses most jurisdictional concerns. At least it's a starting point for discussion. One way or the other, we NEED enforceable ethics rules for Supreme Court justices. That is crystal clear to the VAST majority of U.S. citizens.

[jhegre]

I was so surprised Lindsey "use my words against me" Graham didn't start to cry again.