Supreme Court's code of ethics.

[Supposn]

Supreme Court's code of ethics.

If a congressional specified a code of ethics and penalties binding upon the Supreme Court and its justices were passed and become federal law, a majority of the court could enable their hearing such cases. If congress considers it's necessary, the law could additionally provide for remedies if the court were to ignore congressional petitions for such individual challenges to the court be adjudicated by the court.

Wouldn't that work for our nation? No laws would be needed if we all, (including government officials in particular), were always correctly good and infallible.
No laws can with certainty, always achieve their ostensible purposes and do no net harm. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[1srelluc]

If only congress critter's had to have a security clearance.....

Consider this, The Squad, by merely being elected has the same security clearance as someone who applies for a job with the .gov and whose background is gone over with a fine tooth comb.

Election to office does not mean you were properly vetted.

 

[rightwinger]

If only congress critter's had to have a security clearance.....

Consider this, The Squad, by merely being elected has the same security clearance as someone who applies for a job with the .gov and whose background is gone over with a fine tooth comb.

Election to office does not mean you were properly vetted.

Trump would never have qualified for a Security Clearance through normal channels

 

[bripat9643]

If a congressional specified a code of ethics and penalties binding upon the Supreme Court and its justices were passed and become federal law, a majority of the court could enable their hearing such cases. If congress considers it's necessary, the law could additionally provide for remedies if the court were to ignore congressional petitions for such individual challenges to the court be adjudicated by the court.

Wouldn't that work for our nation? No laws would be needed if we all, (including government officials in particular), were always correctly good and infallible.
No laws can with certainty, always achieve their ostensible purposes and do no net harm. Respectfully, Supposn

Congress cannot impose a code of ethics on the SC. That would violate the Constitutional separation of powers.

 

[BluesLegend]

Devoid of Ethics Democrats, demand the SCOTUS be subject to ethics they draft, laughable.

 

[Lemmi]

A Supreme Court divided amongst itself can never rule.

---

Quoting Jack Benny: When another comedian has a lousy show, I'm the first one to admit it.

 

[Supposn]

Congress cannot impose a code of ethics on the SC. That would violate the Constitutional separation of powers.

Bripat9643, I disagree with your interpretation of federal law. I'm not, and I suppose you're not an attorney. My understanding is our U.S. Congress, within the limits of our currently existing constitution and laws, actually voted upon the drafted words of the federal laws and regulations they passed. Congress can and often does empower other government agencies to draft their own rules which are subject to congressional over-site.

It has not been congress's general policy to micro-manage government agencies, but politics being what they are, members of congress sometimes attempt, and sometimes to some extent succeed to do just that.
[Regarding news stories of Alabama Senator Tuberville's unprecedented campaign to try to change U.S. military's policies regarding abortion by holding up hundreds of nominations and promotions, I don't believe individual members of congress twisting the executive branch's arms, or the White House doing the same to some members of congress, are all that unprecedented.]
Generally, our federal courts and other government agencies run their own shops. It is within congresses power to accept the court's wording or replace it with their own wording of an ethics code binding upon the courts. Congress could furthermore pass the ethics code within a federal act that would specify penalties for those not complying with the ethics code, and it all would be enacted as federal law rather than a regulation.

On the other hand, it's the Supreme Court, rather than our Congress that determines the correct interpretation of all federal laws and regulations. The court has the power to revise previous courts decisions, but they, (for very good reasons), extremely seldom overturn previous Supreme Court decisions. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Shouldnt the supreme court be subject to a stricter code than congress ?
You can vote out congreemen if they are crap. Nobody votes for these judges.

 

[bripat9643]

Shouldnt the supreme court be subject to a stricter code than congress ?
You can vote out congreemen if they are crap. Nobody votes for these judges.

Even if I agreed with your proposition, the bottom line is that Congress cannot impose an ethics code on the SC.

 

[sartre play]

Ethics and the supreme court, Good question.

 

[Supposn]

Even if I agreed with your proposition, the bottom line is that Congress cannot impose an ethics code on the SC.

Tommy Tainant and Bripat9643, I proposed these questions to Bing: “Can the U.S. Congress pass legislation to enact or modify laws or rules governing the judicial branch of our government? Could they modify the rules and laws governing the U.S. Supreme Court”?
Respectfully, Supposn
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bing's response was: “Yes, the U.S. Congress has the authority to pass legislation to enact or modify laws or rules governing the judicial branch of the government, including the U.S. Supreme Court 123. The Fourteenth Amendment Enforcement Clause grants Congress the authority to adopt “appropriate” legislation to enforce the other parts of the Amendment, including the provisions of Section One 1. Congress also has the power to regulate Supreme Court ethics and duty 3. However, it is important to note that the U.S. Constitution provides for a separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, and any legislation passed by Congress must be consistent with the Constitution 234. Refer to 1. constitutionncenter.org 2. bing.com 3. brennancenter.org 4. crsreports.congress.gov”.

 

[whitehall]

Lefties might not like it but the only code of ethics the Supreme Court has to adhere to is the greatest document ever written, The United States Constitution.

 

[Supposn]

Lefties might not like it but the only code of ethics the Supreme Court has to adhere to is the greatest document ever written, The United States Constitution.

Whitehall, those on the left of our nation's political opinions' spectrums, have no lessor or greater than the rights' regards for our United States Constitution. Anyone contending otherwise is revealing their ignorance in this matter.

In regard to issues of federal judges' ethics (and in particular, those of our Supreme Court justices), I believe this has been an issue upon which there seems to be substantial bipartisan agreement among our USA's congressional members and among our USA voters within all 50 states. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[M14 Shooter]

If a congressional specified a code of ethics and penalties binding upon the Supreme Court and its justices were passed and become federal law, a majority of the court could enable their hearing such cases.

Separation of powers - the Court does not answer to Congress.

 

[Supposn]

The Supreme Court says it is adopting a code of ethics for the first time

Separation of powers - the Court does not answer to Congress.

M14 Shooter, TommyTainant and Bripat9643, the courts obey the laws.
If the majority of Supreme Court justices deliberately misinterpret the law, all hope's abandoned.; but otherwise, the U.S. Congress drafts the laws (which must be in compliance with our constitution as it currently exists.

All 3 branches of our federal government are subject to our constitution and those laws. The executive branch administers our government and its laws in accordance with those laws, the judicial branch acting in accordance with those laws, interprets the meaning of those laws.
Refer to yesterday's posted Bing's response to this specific question. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Supreme Court says it is adopting a code of ethics for the first time
M14 Shooter, TommyTainant and Bripat9643, the courts obey the laws.

Explain to the class why the USSC cannot order Congress to pass a law.

 

[whitehall]

Whitehall, those on the left of our nation's political opinions' spectrums, have no lessor or greater than the rights' regards for our United States Constitution. Anyone contending otherwise is revealing their ignorance in this matter.

In regard to issues of federal judges' ethics (and in particular, those of our Supreme Court justices), I believe this has been an issue upon which there seems to be substantial bipartisan agreement among our USA's congressional members and among our USA voters within all 50 states. Respectfully, Supposn

The Supreme Court bases it's decisions on the Constitutionality of an issue. There is no requirement that they respect the opinion of a vocal public or a political party or some trendy issue.

 

[bripat9643]

The Supreme Court says it is adopting a code of ethics for the first time


M14 Shooter, TommyTainant and Bripat9643, the courts obey the laws.
If the majority of Supreme Court justices deliberately misinterpret the law, all hope's abandoned.; but otherwise, the U.S. Congress drafts the laws (which must be in compliance with our constitution as it currently exists.

All 3 branches of our federal government are subject to our constitution and those laws. The executive branch administers our government and its laws in accordance with those laws, the judicial branch acting in accordance with those laws, interprets the meaning of those laws.
Refer to yesterday's posted Bing's response to this specific question. Respectfully, Supposn

The courts often do not obey the laws, especially when left wingers are in charge.

 

[Supposn]

Explain to the class why the USSC cannot order Congress to pass a law.

M14Shooter, Tommy Tainant and Bripat9643, I refer you to the last paragraph of section 8, within article 1 of the U.S. Constitution: “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof”.

Unless the federal courts, (of which the “United States Supreme Court” is the supreme of those courts), should determine otherwise, that paragraph enables the U.S. Congress to make such laws governing the departments and officers of any branches of our government. Although congress does assign or otherwise permit individual government departments and agencies to draft their own rules, those departments and their rules are subject to the laws and rules passed by congress.

No laws or rules within USA's jurisdictions may conflict with our U.S. Constitution. No where in the U.S. Constitution is any other than the legislative branch, and specifically other than our U.S. Congress similarly empowered.
Interpreting the law is among our federal courts' primary functions. If the majority of Supreme Court Justices should ever deliberately misinterpret the law, all hope's abandoned. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[White 6]

Explain to the class why the USSC cannot order Congress to pass a law.

Why? You should already know why the USSC cannot order Congress to pass a law. They can only rule a law as constitutional or unconstitutional.