The ethical loophole Clarence Thomas is gleefully exploiting -- and how to stop him

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

As the Roe decision ricochets through America, further eroding the idea that we live under the rule of law and not raw politics, we must also ask a more fundamental question: Can the U.S. Supreme Court do anything to pull back from the brink of a full-on slide into pure partisanship? Already reeling from the leaked Roe draft opinion earlier this spring, public confidence in the court, with the release of the final decision, has dropped to all-time lows, undermining the legitimacy of a core institutional pillar of American democracy — now itself under siege.

That this siege has been led by lawyers who have sworn to uphold the rule of law — John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Cleta Mitchell, among others — is a stunning development. Many of these lawyers are currently under investigation by bar associations, which hold the power both to confer professional licenses and to take them away in cases where it finds the fundamental rules of lawyer ethics — which would prohibit the making of false statements, assisting in crime or fraud and not exercising independent judgment — have been violated. Based on facts in the public record, the case for sanctioning the Trump lawyers is strong.

But what about Supreme Court justices? Remarkably, justices are not bound by these same rules of legal ethics. In fact, they are not bound by any ethical rules — a fact that places them at odds not only with practicing lawyers but with virtually all other judges in the United States, including other federal judges, who are governed by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

Yet that code exempts Supreme Court justices from its coverage. The rationale is that judges in lower federal courts are established by Congress. In contrast, U.S. Supreme Court justices derive their authority directly from Article III of the Constitution, which provides that they may serve as long as they demonstrate “good behavior” and may only be removed by impeachment.

-more-

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-ethical-loophole-clarence-thomas-is-gleefully-exploiting-and-how-to-stop-him/ar-AAZFAE5

[mopinko]

1. seems to me congress could define 'good conduct' as adhering to those standards.

so that failing to do so COULD be grounds for impeachment.
at least there's a yardstick.

[Rebl2]

4. Would not

go anywhere unfortunately.

[mopinko]

5. doesnt seem like that big a flex.

it's the kind of nonbinding shit dc loves.

[malthaussen]

6. The USSC derives its authority from the Constitution, not Congress.

Because of the whole balance-of-powers thing, having Congress regulate the Court (except in the extraordinary case of impeachment) would not be constitutional.

-- Mal

[mopinko]

7. clearly. but they have the power of impeachment, so

they have the power to lay out what constitutes an impeachable offense.

[paleotn]

2. Am going to type this....

and probably get hidden. There's always the Grisham alternative.

[orthoclad]

3. Hole cards

They're showing their hole cards now on this court. Even Silent Thomas is writing stuff now (or he has his ghost writer busy). The coup didn't end, just the J6 phase of it.
Slipping in Amy Corona Barrett, Super-spreader In Chief, was their trump card.