Seth Barrett Tillman: The Code of Conduct for United States Judges does not apply to U.S. Supreme Court Justices — why?

The federal Code of Judicial Conduct applies to all Article III judges—except members of the Supreme Court of the United States. Is that because Supreme Court justices do not need ethics? No. Is it because they are better human beings, citizens, and jurists than their lower court colleagues? No.
Consider recusal when judicial bias is asserted…

Read the whole thing.

7 thoughts on “Seth Barrett Tillman: <i>The Code of Conduct for United States Judges does not apply to U.S. Supreme Court Justices — why?</i>”

  1. Perhaps Seth is right that fashions change faster than remedies and the Supreme Court should remain independent of outside watchdogs. The other justices then have the responsibility to censure her for these comments in order to protect the integrity of their institution. I wonder if she’s planning on leaving soon anyway and noted how well Sanders did going out in a blaze of bluster.

  2. Well she finally said publicly what millions of Americans have suspected. Too many Supreme Court justices rule based on their political beliefs and not on the constitution

    You have to wonder what the founding fathers would think when the Supreme Court has just become a quasi-legislative entity. Actually I think the process started in the 70s with Roe v Wade. I believe Scalia said had that been left up to the states there would not be the acrimony that there is even 40 years later.

    As to why the rules don’t apply how do you get rid of a Supreme Court justice?

  3. The SCOTUS’s decent into tyranny began with Roe v Wade and ended with Justice Kennedy’s actions in over riding Federal separation of powers WRT the executive’s authority at Guantanamo and using the concept of Habeas Corpus to over ride unlimited detention of unlawful combatants in Boumediene v Bush.

    See: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s opinion for the majority in Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195) and Al Odah v. U.S. (06-1196)

    See also why Rasul v. Bush in 2004 — which set up Boumediene v. Bush — was the Worse Supreme Court Decision Since Dred Scott

  4. I believe if the other justices censured her as a group it would go a great way to clearing up the public perception concern, not the reality. The likelihood of that is pretty close to zero. She is part of the club. Trump has a renew issue with some legs.


  5. Seth reported on Twitter
    that there’s no official record of Ginsburg’s semi-apology. It was sent from the press office straight to news outlets. It obviously didn’t actually reflect her real feelings and weren’t her real words.

Comments are closed.