Zone1 Is it time to have the US Supreme Court Code of Ethics?

[Rye Catcher]

Vote now, Yes or No, and explain why.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

View attachment 664966

Vote now, Yes or No, and explain why.

This explains it all

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It would be extremely unethical for a judge to have prejudged any case before the case came before him or her.

 

[Sunsettommy]

View attachment 664966

Vote now, Yes or No, and explain why.

They wanted a deal before they voted which is unethical as this article explains well:

American Thinker

June 27, 2022

Manchin and Collins: 'We wuz robbed.'​

By John Mastronardi

Excerpt

No sooner had the Supreme Court issued its Dobbs opinion then West Virginia’s sometimes-rational-Democrat senator Joe Manchin and senior Maine-Squish-Republican, senator Susan Collins, came out expressing their combined horror and indignation over the decision. They both went to say they were aghast that both Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch had apparently misrepresented to them, both in private meetings and during their hearings, that they would respect established precedent. The senators felt “betrayed” by the pair. Manchin was quoted as saying, “I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans.

Collins in her statement said, “This decision is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on the importance of supporting long-standing precedents that the country has relied upon.” What each of these senator’s statement reveals, without saying it out loud, was they thought they had a deal.

LINK

Making a deal to get my vote is pathetic and stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 664966

Vote now, Yes or No, and explain why.

Roe was an important, settled precedent that was the law of the land and held that the Constitution protected a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

So what?

 

[MaryL]

Apparently, Brandon and the other Dem Dem demagogues don't get it. Abortion isn't outlawed, kiddos. The SCOTUS returned this to the states to determine that for themselves. For ya'all on tic toc having a meltdown, relax. You can commit infanticide with out conscience in blue states.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Darkwind]

View attachment 664966

Vote now, Yes or No, and explain why.

Only if they return to towing the progressive line.

You'll note that none of them said that they would not fairly evaluate Roe. They did. They found it wanting and unConstitutional.

In other words, they followed their ethics and reached the correct conclusion.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Seem clear Mens rea was in the minds and not the words of these four politicians.

 

[Meriweather]

The US Supreme Court already has a code of ethics. It is called the Constitution.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Apparently, Brandon and the other Dem Dem demagogues don't get it. Abortion isn't outlawed, kiddos. The SCOTUS returned this to the states to determine that for themselves. For ya'all on tic toc having a meltdown, relax. You can commit infanticide with out conscience in blue states.

.
Infanticide is the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.

The Supreme Court neglects the consequences of their decisions on abortion and guns.

The consequences are obvious, R v. W was an emotional argument. The unintended consequences are yet to be noted by those who can't think outside the box.

The irony, nay the hypocrisy of the two decisions is apparent: R v. W is an assault on the Rights of Women; the Right to carry concealed guns in the Public Arena expands the 2nd A.