Does the Constitution address the issue of ethics on the Supreme Court?

Not beyond granting Congress the power to impeach and remove a justice

Let’s light this candle. No branch of government is beyond oversight from another branch, to my understanding. As I tend to think symmetrically, Congress seems the appropriate branch with SC oversight authority.

As I mentioned below - Justice Kagan opined on the same issue shortly after Alito did.

But no… the stuff that has been in the news of late serves merely to embarrass a couple of justices. It has no value beyond influencing public perception of the court as right wing and political (hopefully encouraging voters to show up for Democrats to eventually fix the problem).

are incapable of feeling embarrassed. Only people with a conscience have that ability, and it's blatantly clear neither of them possess one.

They aren’t going anywhere and their opinion isn’t going to change. And Whitehouse doesn’t expect anything to come of this.

It’s all about filling news cycles with reasons for people to doubt the legitimacy of the court

the Democrats. It's their own actions that have brought the scrutiny and the taint of corruption upon the court.

Democrats aren't saints, but whatever they've done, pales in comparison to what Thomas and Alito have done.

I am really tired of the oh you are listening to the "media spin," or "political hype," arguments. In Alito's and Thomas' case there is actual proof of the money they have taken from wealthy Republican donors. There is actual proof Ginny Thomas played at the very least a perifrial part in the lead up to January 6. Then there is the upside down flag on the Alito's house of which their is photographic evidence.

But if you want to keep believing this court isn't corrupt and this is all much ado about nothing that's your right.

I can’t think of one that is consistent with your reading of the situation

Not because the evidence isn't there, but because there is no way any Republican would vote for it.

That isn't the same thing as Alito and Thomas aren't corrupt. Anymore than there weren't enough Republicans willing to vote for Trump to be removed meant he was innocent. If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. The evidence is there. That's what I base my take on the situation on. If there was no proof that Alito and Thomas took money from wealthy Republican donors then I'd agree it was hype and political gamesmanship. The money was given and accepted. It wasn't reported by the recipients. Those are the facts.

Why didn’t other senate Democrats even put their name on the letter requesting a response? Why wasn’t it a subpoena (we hold a majority on both committees and in the senate as a whole)? Why isn’t anyone else going on the Sunday shows making a big deal of the scandal?

questioned about their actions by anyone so again that's your right. Why even have a judicial oversight committee, if because only one of them asks it means that person's concerns have no validity?

I am done arguing. To me the money they accepted from partisans without making that knowledge public tells me all I need to know about their ability to remain impartial.

The problem is that the constitution intends for them to be not only “co-equal”… but also independent of the political branches. I would love for them to be questioned in an open hearing and subject to perjury… but that isn’t an option absent an impeachment

...and the number of court districts.

Justices are appointed to the federal courts for life, but there is no requirement that they have to serve on the court to which they were first appointed to for life.

Me? Get on the Court and serve for 10-years; after which the justice is subject to relocation to another federal Court. Let them rotate through the system.

They can of course expand the court (or add other subordinate courts)- but that isn’t likely to occur.

Your remaining fantasy is flat out. There is no chance of a scheme that effectively removes one or more of them from the top court going through… and it would be unanimous

The power of the purse can be as strong as they want to make it.

establish ethical guidelines that could be used to justify an impeachment.

That's really just another way of saying that "an impeachable offense is whatever the current US House says that it is"... and they "say" that by holding an impeachment vote (or a vote to open an impeachment investigation).

guidelines that would be used to determine whether a justice can be impeached or not before impeachment comes up. If not, then it would seem to suggest justices are not bound by any ethical code. That is absurd.

One Congress cannot tie the hands of the next in regard to a constitutional function.

They can publish any sort of statement or joint resolution that they like. But they can't put any teeth into it.

Let's say that Republicans don't like that Justice Sotomayor made almost $4million in book royalties. They can pass a joint resolution condemning it and declaring it impeachable. But when the next Congress gets sworn in... if there aren't a majority of the House willing to impeach... the resolution is worthless.

jerk into an honest convo!!!

She opined on the same subject mere days later.

Alito's interview and opining about Congress having no authority, was done with a Leonard Leo lawyer -

Justice Kagan stated that it would be good for the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct. She was speaking of something her own branch of government could do voluntarily.

Justice Alito questioned the ability of Congress to impose one. He was discounting the capacity of a co-equal branch of government to serve as a check on his own.

She spoke specifically of Congress” authority to regulate the Supreme Court.

If Dems retake the House, will there be enough votes to expand the Supreme Court? Make the unethicals inconsequential?

I am just hoping we get the opportunity. I still don't trust them to honor the election results even if we win by a landslide.

Like his admitting he won't be impartial. Like him flying insurrectionist symbols. Like his fucking voting record, which demonstrates that he can't be impartial. For his utter mendacity.

Creating a confrontation over whether or not Congress has authority seems pretty minor in comparison.

Supreme Court is absolutely improper for a sitting justice. Alito should resign or be impeached.