The price of gold keeps climbing to unprecedented heights. Here's why
Southwest plans to cut flights in Atlanta while adding them elsewhere. Its unions are unhappy
Harris plans to campaign on Arizona's border with Mexico to show strength on immigration
Sri Lanka's new president says he'll restart talks with the IMF to find a way out of economic crisis
UN chief criticizes divided Security Council for failure of leadership to end wars, calls for unity
Woolly rhino found preserved in Russian permafrost after 32,000 years
Kim Porter’s children push back on speculation about their mother’s death
Rossi lands seat with Ed Carpenter Racing as team owner Carpenter scales back to Indy 500 only
Anna Sorokin eliminated from 'Dancing With the Stars' in first round of cuts
The Supreme Court’s 2023 ethics code has been criticized for being weak and unenforceable.
The ethical imbroglios encircling the Supreme Court in the 1960s led to the establishment of judicial ethics codes everywhere except, ironically, the Supreme Court.
In 1972, the American Bar Association published a Code of Judicial Conduct that was eventually adopted by judiciaries in all 50 states and the lower federal courts.
Judges are typically introduced to their ethics codes when they ascend the bench. They are updated on their obligations in continuing judicial education programs, encouraged to solicit ethical guidance from committees established for that purpose, and subject to sanctions for misconduct by disciplinary bodies within their judicial systems.
An ethics-mindful culture, long entrenched in the lower courts, has been absent from the Supreme Court, which did not adopt its code until November 2023. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s code is weaker than the lower courts’. It does not require justices to take “appropriate action” upon learning that a fellow justice violated the code. It omits the duty to be faithful to the law. It relaxes restrictions on using judicial resources for private purposes and exploiting a justice’s official status for personal gain. And it asserts that the duty to disqualify when impartiality is in doubt is diminished by the need for all nine justices to preside.
5. A growing cult of celebrity surrounds the justices
Some members of the Supreme Court, including the late justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have embraced a cult of celebrity. They have showcased their ideological predispositions in speeches, articles and professional and personal associations, and are lionized by ideologically aligned groups, which fuels suspicions that they are insufficiently committed to impartial justice.
Supreme Court ethics concerns are not new but have escalated in the modern era.
The problem has been exacerbated by the court’s detractors, who exaggerate allegations of ethical misconduct to score partisan points, and by the justices themselves, who, in the absence of an established culture that internalizes ethical expectations, have been nose-blind to the smell of their own conduct.
Charles Gardner Geyh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation
