Justice Kagan calls for a way to enforce Supreme Court ethics code
Source: Washington Post
Justice Kagan calls for a way to enforce Supreme Court ethics code
Justice Elena Kagan suggested Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. could appoint an outside panel of highly respected judges to review allegations of wrongdoing.
By Ann E. Marimow
July 25, 2024 at 4:41 p.m. EDT
SACRAMENTO, Calif. Justice Elena Kagan said Thursday that she would support the creation of a committee of judges to examine potential violations of the Supreme Courts new ethics code, speaking out as President Biden and others are increasingly calling for reform at the high court.
In an interview before a crowd of judges and lawyers at a judicial conference, Kagan suggested that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. could appoint an outside panel of highly respected, experienced judges to review allegations of wrongdoing by the nine justices.
Last fall, in response to criticism from Democratic lawmakers and outside experts about perceived ethics violations, Roberts announced that the court for the first time had agreed to abide by an ethics code specific to the justices. But the policy did not include a way to examine alleged misconduct, or to clear or sanction justices who might violate the rules. Since then, a new round of ethical questions, and the courts rulings this term, have increased calls for change.
Kagan said the courts code of conduct, embraced by all the justices, is a good one, but said criticism about the inability to enforce it is fair. ... Rules usually have enforcement mechanisms attached to them, and this one, this set of rules, does not, she said, adding that however hard it is, we could and should try to figure out some mechanism for doing this.
{snip}
By Ann Marimow
Ann Marimow covers the Supreme Court for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2005, and has spent a decade writing about legal affairs and the federal judiciary. She previously covered state government and politics in California, New Hampshire and Maryland. Twitter https://twitter.com/amarimow
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/25/supreme-court-kagan-ethics-code-reform/
ananda
(29,811 posts)Roberts wants to keep them, no matter what.
Amirite?
LetMyPeopleVote
(151,425 posts)You beat me by one minute
Link to tweet
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/elena-kagan-endorses-supreme-court-ethics-enforcement-mechanism
While speaking Thursday at a judicial conference in Sacramento, California, Kagan said she trusts Roberts and if he creates some sort of committee of highly respected judges with a great deal of experience and a reputation for fairness, that seems like a good solution.
The court has been dogged by controversy following reports of lavish vacations, private jet flights, and other gifts received by Justice Clarence Thomas. The justices adopted a code of conduct for the first time in November in response to growing demands for transparency and accountability, but its been criticized for lacking an enforcement mechanism.
Kagan, in response to a moderators question at the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuits annual judicial conference, acknowledged there are difficulties in deciding who should enforce an ethics code for the justices.
But I feel as though we, however hard it is, that we could and should try to figure out some mechanism for doing this, she said.
BlueKota
(2,888 posts)I still think if they continue to refuse President Biden should use their own immunity decision to remove them without impeachment. It is up to the Executive Branch to enforce the law in the Constitution, and they said themselves he can do anything it allows him to without fear of prosecution. It can be argued that the 6 are violating their oaths of office, and that Alito and Thomas at least appear to have taken what might be considered bribes.
modrepub
(3,562 posts)If the IRS would treat these as unreported income/compensation and act accordingly.
PSPS
(13,965 posts)Zeitghost
(4,240 posts)His order to remove a sitting justice would be struck down by the courts before the ink was dry.
He might be immune from any criminal charge involved in his action (if there were any), but it wouldn't make the order legal or binding.
bucolic_frolic
(45,600 posts)If he nominated them, and the Senate balked, could he find a way to push an expanded Court? To replace Justices?
There's always this issue of enumerated powers, and implied powers.
A president might say if the Senate doesn't hold hearings within 90 days, he takes that to mean implied confirmation.
Everybody's dealing with semantics.
Zeitghost
(4,240 posts)We have three co-equal branches of government, the President can not expand the court on his own.
GB_RN
(2,857 posts)Unless Congress forces the issue with legislation, Roberts isnt going to do a damned thing more than he has, with that lame assed excuse for a code of ethics. After all, Leonard Leo and his billionaire buddies would be pissed at Roberts if he let anything happen to their two, major purchases (Clarence Uncle Slappy the Clown Thomas & Scammy Alito).
70sEraVet
(3,903 posts)That seems reasonable. Call it a 'Corruption Tax'!
et tu
(1,611 posts)Sessuch
(137 posts)Let's not kid ourselves. The Roberts Court wants no one questioning its behavior or its supremacy. The Roberts Court want to be the swing mechanism that rules the government. Bring them a suit that lessens the powers of the other branches of government, they will sign it. We have the Kings Court.
Zeitghost
(4,240 posts)Would still not have the power to enforce an ethics code.
The only constitutional answer is impeachment or an amendment establishing the code and it's enforcement mechinism. There are no other ways to punish or remove a justice.
Bayard
(23,440 posts)Proverbial fox guarding the hen house.
An independent review is needed.
cstanleytech
(26,761 posts)If they don't observe an ethical rule or something then Congress can exercise is power the purse to cut things like personnel that assist the Justices currently.
Not to mention I wonder how they would enjoy being in session without electricity.
After all there's nothing in the Constitution that requires the government to fund pay for that is there?
FBaggins
(27,362 posts)Here's a recent state (NH) case as an example:
https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2023/11/20/in-sweeping-order-court-holds-nh-school-funding-model-is-unconstitutionally-low/
This particular ruling is on hold and may never get through - but there have been a number of others like it. The state legislature cuts funding for a function that is constitutionally mandated - and the courts force them to fund it.
The constitution contemplates not only the existence of SCOTUS, but that they need to be independent of political pressure. It is therefore incredibly difficult to exert political pressure on them.
cstanleytech
(26,761 posts)So all they would have to do is simply leave funding out for it and let them fend for themselves when it comes to their plumbing and electrical requests for funding since I kinda doubt an Amendment requirement for electricity or plumbing was written into it. Payment to the Judges? Sure but the rest is a gift from the taxpayer.
FBaggins
(27,362 posts)But the state constitution requires the state to provide an education and the court determined that the approved funding was insufficient to meet that requirement. So it ordered them to increase funding
and it wasnt the first state court to do so.
In this case - a federal judge could determine that the government must fund normal SCOTUS operations.
cstanleytech
(26,761 posts)They can overturn a law that Congress passes but as long as it's not a law SCOTUS can't do shit.
FBaggins
(27,362 posts)..the annual budget (i.e., the "power of the purse" ) IS a law passed by congress and signed by the president
Just as state budgets are in NH.