This is why supreme court conclusions (and law in general) MUST base themselves on the constitution. The more interpretation involved, the wider the door to influence pedaling becomes. The constitution needs to be strictly interpreted and there should be no place for "updating" its meaning based on shifting cultural trends.<p>The threat of influence pedaling is also a good reason to keep the justice count small. Increasing the justice count increases the attack surface and also makes it harder to track. In addition to granting the executive branch more influence over the courts.
I've never read anything more out-to-lunch than this in my life. Clarence Thomas is a signatory of this code of conduct; in what way has he avoided impropriety <i>and even the appearance of impropriety</i> while accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free vacations, housing for his family members, a six-figure recreational vehicle, free private schooling for his child, from straight up lobbyists such as Harlan Crow, on whose affairs Thomas would later rule without recusing himself or even disclosing the existence of these frank bribes that had to be dug up later by journalists? Every decision with Thomas's assent on it should be considered corrupt and legally invalid until proven otherwise.
> The absence of a Code, however, has led
in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of
this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard
themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.<p>Should read "misunderstanding <i>by</i> the Justices of this Court". Otherwise, this wouldn't be necessary. The lengths authority and institutions go through to avoid acknowledging it's own wrongdoing...
A code of conduct usually sets expectations in the presence of managers or moderators who will enforce acceptable conduct. What is the point of this document that applies to the highest authority in the land? Who will enforce it?<p>Is any process or sanctions for transgressors?
Now that we've entrenched the ideas that impeachment and the judiciary are political weapons we've broken the checks and balances that the constitution put in place. In the before times Thomas would've been impeached in a bipartisan manner.
The various comments complaining that Justices have violated this Code in the past are forgetting that modern law and society looks dimly on ex-post-facto rulemaking and such laws are in fact forbidden by the Constitution. Past actions are certainly not covered under a code that is promulgated as of today.<p>Anyway, it looks like a step forward. It will be interesting to see if there is any movement from Congress should the Code be violated.
On the basis of this code, it would appear that Justices Thomas and Alito would need to recuse themselves from the overwhelming majority of the court's cases. Thomas especially runs afoul of Canon 3.B(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (f).