U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should a sitting Supreme Court justice comment on a presidential candidate or nominee?
Yes 25 23.81%
No 80 76.19%
Voters: 105. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-13-2016, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,074 posts, read 4,921,493 times
Reputation: 7700

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
Why don't you link to this code of ethics for US Supreme Court Justices you are so familiar with.


Actually, I shall direct you to this article, for the answer is there is not a judicial code of ethics for the US Supreme Court:


Did Justice Ginsburg's comments on Donald Trump violate ethics rules?


Do you want to know why? Look in the Constitution and get back to us.
It's for US Judges. You're saying supreme court judges are magically exempt from following such rules? If they are, in law, then I see a big loophole in the rules as this same code certainly should apply to them.

Don't you agree? Otherwise, it's like saying ENT Doctors should follow a code of ethics but podiatrists shouldn't. And that makes zero sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-13-2016, 01:08 PM
 
Location: annandale, va & slidell, la
7,339 posts, read 3,037,204 times
Reputation: 6152
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
I don't know. Aren't SCOTUS Justices there to provide their opinions...?
No Bob.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 01:30 PM
Status: "Trump: Inept, Incompetent, Insecure" (set 3 days ago)
 
10,515 posts, read 6,202,512 times
Reputation: 7241
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
It's for US Judges. You're saying supreme court judges are magically exempt from following such rules? If they are, in law, then I see a big loophole in the rules as this same code certainly should apply to them.

Don't you agree? Otherwise, it's like saying ENT Doctors should follow a code of ethics but podiatrists shouldn't. And that makes zero sense.
As that article from the ABA duly noted, the Code of Judicial Conduct does not apply to the United States Supreme Court, which was created in Article III of the Constitution of the United States.


Here is Section 1 of Article III:


"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."


Note that the section refers to 'such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish'. It was Congress that established the Federal District Courts, Federal Appeals Courts, and some other courts (bankruptcy, admiralty, and a few others I can't think of). Congress did NOT establish the Supreme Court.


Since Congress 'ordained and established' these lower Courts, they were able to create a Code of Judicial Conduct for said courts. However, the Legislative Branch (and the Executive Branch) of our government is not Constitutionally empowered to place restrictions upon the Supreme Court of the Judicial Branch.


"Good behavior" shall be addressed at another time. However, I hope this explanation suffices.


I shall spend some time looking for podiatrists and ENT doctors in the Constitution. I doubt I will find much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 01:59 PM
 
Location: Old Hippie Heaven
18,185 posts, read 8,206,115 times
Reputation: 10617
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
FWIW, I don't think Scalia would have liked Trump either.
Give Scalia his due - I think you're absolutely right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Lone Mountain Las Vegas NV
12,828 posts, read 4,851,266 times
Reputation: 5691
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
It's for US Judges. You're saying supreme court judges are magically exempt from following such rules? If they are, in law, then I see a big loophole in the rules as this same code certainly should apply to them.

Don't you agree? Otherwise, it's like saying ENT Doctors should follow a code of ethics but podiatrists shouldn't. And that makes zero sense.
Actually the Code of Conduct includes a paragraph describing who it applies to...

This Code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges. Certain provisions of this Code apply to special masters and commissioners as indicated in the “Compliance” section. The Tax Court, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have adopted this Code.

Notice who is not there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 03:32 PM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,874,215 times
Reputation: 2263
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
It's for US Judges. You're saying supreme court judges are magically exempt from following such rules? If they are, in law, then I see a big loophole in the rules as this same code certainly should apply to them.

Don't you agree? Otherwise, it's like saying ENT Doctors should follow a code of ethics but podiatrists shouldn't. And that makes zero sense.
While one might reasonably suppose it makes zero sense, it is true that the Supreme Court Justices are exempt from the code of judicial ethics. The Justices are responsible for self-policing ethics (up to the point that impeachment is on the table).


I'm not sure that Congress could impose a canon of ethics on federal courts. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges was adopted by the Judicial Conference, not by Congress. While the Judicial Conference was codified by Congress (only as to structure, not the substance of any rule it might decide to suggest), it is substantively under the control of high judicial officers (and pre-existed Congress' codification).


Article I, section 8 & Article III, section 1 point out that Congress may "ordain and establish" inferior courts, or "constitute" inferior courts.


While Congress would surely combine the "constitute inferior courts" power with the Necessary and Proper power to attempt to impose ethics, it would ultimately be up to the judicial branch to determine if imposed ethics rules are constitutional. In fact, former Chief Justice Rehnquist opined that Congressional intrusion on judicial independence or control of judicial acts is unconstitutional. Where that line lies is tough to say.


Even the Senate's own analysis states: "It is not clear whether Congress has authority to investigate and punish judges' behavior outside of the impeachment process."
https://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/cr...23%40%20%20%0A
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 03:39 PM
 
11,057 posts, read 3,757,607 times
Reputation: 5197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1 View Post
I hope with every fiber in my soul that Donald Trump loses. I think a Trump presidency has a potential to be dangerous. I am an ABT (anybody but Trump) voter.

However, even though I agree with her, I really do not think Ruth Ginsburg, a sitting Supreme Court justice should comment on a presidential nominee. I think it is very important that the Supreme Court be apolitical. It's possible I missed it but I don't remember this happening in my lifetime. What is your take?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg "can't imagine" what the U.S. would be with President Trump - CBS News


And Hillary Presidency doesn't have any potential to be dangerous full of corruption and put our security at risk?....your hate towards Trump is funny especially coming from a "conservative"....lol


Imagine if a Conservative Supreme Court Justice said in public that Hillary is a liar and corrupt and there is something that smells over the Clinton Foundation and that the Department of Justice should have indicted Hillary on criminal charges.....would the media and democrats be o.k with that?

Ruth crossed the line by a mile and tainted the S.C. which already has a bad rap of being too political, she took it to the next level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 03:42 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,882 posts, read 42,105,179 times
Reputation: 43291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
And Hillary Presidency doesn't have any potential to be dangerous full of corruption and put our security at risk?....your hate towards Trump shows for true colors.


Imagine if a Conservative Supreme Court Justice said in public that Hillary is a liar and corrupt and there is something that smells over the Clinton Foundation and that the Department of Justice should have indicted Hillary on criminal charges.....would the media and democrats be o.k with that?........


Of course not. But, according to one poster, Ginsburg was just giving her opinion, which is her job.


I also don't like Trump. I also won't vote for him (or Clinton). I do, however, absolutely despise Martin O'Malley.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 03:44 PM
 
4,508 posts, read 2,122,199 times
Reputation: 9532
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
I don't know. Aren't SCOTUS Justices there to provide their opinions...?
Jeez. You can't possibly believe what you typed.


They are there to render judgment and definitely not to flap their gums about politics. They are NOT elected. Ruthie, you old crone, just sit down and shut the holy hell up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 03:47 PM
 
11,057 posts, read 3,757,607 times
Reputation: 5197
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Of course not. But, according to one poster, Ginsburg was just giving her opinion, which is her job.


I also don't like Trump. I also won't vote for him (or Clinton). I do, however, absolutely despise Martin O'Malley.

Her job is to give her opinions on cases brought to the S.C. based on facts and argument.

Her job is not to turn the S.C. into an arm of the DNC and a PRO Hillary campaign.......she sounded like the bimbos from The View.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top