On divided government

[Rustic]

We live in a republic, which we the people democratically elect to do the people's business. We also have a Constitution, one which provides checks and balances on the POTUS and The Congress. A process umpired by a Judiciary which is supposed to be impartial:

Sadly, it too has become more and more divided and more and more political.

It is past time for the Supreme Court to promulgate a Code of Ethics, as have all other judges and justices who preside in the lesser courts of our nation. Too often justices of the Supreme Court have Conflicts of Interests, which though denied, impact their judgment and decisions.

 

[saveliberty]

What makes you think there is no ethic code?

 

[saveliberty]

A penalty system for ethics violations in the Supreme Court is just an invitation to politicize the court and silence the minority.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

A Code of Ethics would make no difference. They will rule as they will. The trick is to get those who both understand and respect the Constitution on the Court, and reject those who feel it can be changed on the whims of the times.

 

[yiostheoy]

So if I'm reading this right you want to find a way to eliminate activist judges meaning judges who go out of their way to hand out the ruling they want not necessarily the one that is correct or legal. I am all for that I don't care if it's a conservative or liberal judges.

The question is straight forward, it has nothing to do with activist judges and everything to do with Conflicts of Interests.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf

Above is a link to the Code of Judicial Ethics promulgated in California.

• Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
• Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.
• Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently and diligently.
• Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
• Canon 5. A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.
• Canon 6. Compliance with the Code of Judicial Ethics.

This is just a lot of horse sh!t.

What you need is a statute or amendment that states the SCOTUS will interpret law based on clearly defined precedents, and not legislate from the bench.

Ironically this would require impeachment of all 3 females currently on the Court.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Sure, as long as I get to write that code of ethics. Otherwise, no. Serious answer: No, because of the amount of vetting they go through to get on the Supreme Court.

 

[emilynghiem]

We live in a republic, which we the people democratically elect to do the people's business. We also have a Constitution, one which provides checks and balances on the POTUS and The Congress. A process umpired by a Judiciary which is supposed to be impartial:

Sadly, it too has become more and more divided and more and more political.

It is past time for the Supreme Court to promulgate a Code of Ethics, as have all other judges and justices who preside in the lesser courts of our nation. Too often justices of the Supreme Court have Conflicts of Interests, which though denied, impact their judgment and decisions.

Yes in keeping with the Constitution, we need to emphasize that partisan beliefs count as a form of religious beliefs, even if these are disguised or presented as "secular" or "political" beliefs.

Creeds should be treated equally under the First and Fourteenth Amendment, and not get imposed or established, prohibited or discriminated against by "majority rule" among members of either Congress or Courts.

This should already be inherent in Constitutional laws and process; but since it isn't happening consistently, we need to renew and restore the commitment to these laws.

See www.ethics-commission.net Code of Ethics for Govt Service, 1980

 

[emilynghiem]

They just need to abide by the Constitution. Thats it.

Dear TNHarley whitehall Wry Catcher
I think the point is they SHOULD be, but it isn't happening.
Part of the reason is we aren't respecting limits on govt when we allow Courts and Congress to mandate laws that favor one sides political beliefs over another, which is in essence violating the First and 14th Amendments.

We aren't interpreting First Amendment "religious freedom" to apply equally to "political beliefs" but only to recognized religions such as Christianity and "Prolife" being counted as religions. To treat the beliefs of all people and groups equally, the laws against govt prohibiting or establishing "religion" ie "beliefs/creeds" SHOULD EQUALLY be applied to SECULAR and POLITICAL beliefs and creeds such as LGBT and right to health care as a political belief similar to right to life.

But this isn't happening, and groups that bully to win in Courts and Congress
are being rewarded by dragging conflicts of beliefs into govt and railroading over the opposition.
We are rewarding unconstitutional behavior.

There is discrimination going on by creed, where both parties are guilty of oppressing the other, but the right is held to Constitutional standards that the left is bypassing. So it isn't equal when only the beliefs of the right are counted as "separated" from govt while the beliefs of the left are allowed to be compelled by govt under penalty of law (because these are argued as "secular" and not "religious" though both sides CONSTITUTE BELIEFS).

(Another problem is Corporations including business nonprofit religious etc, Media conglomerates, Political Parties and other such Collective entities are invoking both Rights/Freedoms as "individuals" while also exercising collective influence, power and resources unequal to regular citizens. So these larger groups acting as individuals legally AREN'T checked or balanced as govt is supposed to be by enforcing the Bill of Rights (which doesn't apply to "individuals") thus these larger groups are getting away with similar abuses and oppression that the Bill of Rights otherwise prevents govt from doing.

I believe this issue can be addressed by taking OP's idea of an ETHICS standard for Courts, and teaching and enforcing it among Citizens and Corporations as well. Just get everyone on the same page with enforcing these standards so there is unified agreement to respect rights freedoms beliefs and protections equally, and stop and correct abuses on any level these are occurring.

 

[owebo]

The "code of ethics" for the Supreme Court is the U.S. Constitution.

Idiot-gram ^^^

^^^ clueless snowflake

 

[Wry Catcher]

The "code of ethics" for the Supreme Court is the U.S. Constitution.

Idiot-gram ^^^

^^^ clueless snowflake

Why do you go out of your way to prove you're an ignorant fool?

 

[Doc1]

I was not trolling for fools, sadly I caught three of them.

Yes of course we all nee to simply bow to your superior beliefs and simply accept everything you say. The politics will never leave the SC.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I was not trolling for fools, sadly I caught three of them.

Yes of course we all nee to simply bow to your superior beliefs and simply accept everything you say. The politics will never leave the SC.

More bullshit. No one should "simply bow to" my beliefs. fools can't, they simply cannot offer a substantive response to basic statements of opinion supported by facts.

In your case you've missed the point entirely, your biases get in the way. The Supreme Court (SC) will always be political, man is a political animal - but that is not what a Code of Ethics attempts to change. If you would read without bias you would have read the Canon's above, and not responded with such a foolish comment.

 

[Doc1]

I was not trolling for fools, sadly I caught three of them.

Yes of course we all nee to simply bow to your superior beliefs and simply accept everything you say. The politics will never leave the SC.

More bullshit. No one should "simply bow to" my beliefs. fools can't, they simply cannot offer a substantive response to basic statements of opinion supported by facts.

In your case you've missed the point entirely, your biases get in the way. The Supreme Court (SC) will always be political, man is a political animal - but that is not what a Code of Ethics attempts to change. If you would read without bias you would have read the Canon's above, and not responded with such a foolish comment.

You see, there you go again. I have no biases kid, I just don't think as much of you as you think of yourself. You , for whatever reason need to pretend to be superior. Fact. Nobody can/will EVER get the politics out of the SC. Fools ply the hypothetical game, I'm just sayin

 

[Wry Catcher]

I was not trolling for fools, sadly I caught three of them.

Yes of course we all nee to simply bow to your superior beliefs and simply accept everything you say. The politics will never leave the SC.

More bullshit. No one should "simply bow to" my beliefs. fools can't, they simply cannot offer a substantive response to basic statements of opinion supported by facts.

In your case you've missed the point entirely, your biases get in the way. The Supreme Court (SC) will always be political, man is a political animal - but that is not what a Code of Ethics attempts to change. If you would read without bias you would have read the Canon's above, and not responded with such a foolish comment.

You see, there you go again. I have no biases kid, I just don't think as much of you as you think of yourself. You , for whatever reason need to pretend to be superior. Fact. Nobody can/will EVER get the politics out of the SC. Fools ply the hypothetical game, I'm just sayin

I'm not a kid and patronizing is not the best way to address anyone, especially when you cannot read and comprehend a simple paragraph. Maybe this will help:

• The Supreme Court (SC) will always be political, man is a political animal (your biases permeate your entire post)
  
• A Code of Ethics does not impact a judge's basic beliefs
• A Code of Ethics requires the following:

1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
   
2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.
   
3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.
   
4. A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
   
5. A judge shall Comply with the Code of Judicial Ethics.

Have someone sit down and explain my post, and ask questions which still confuse you. And in the future stop denying you are not biased. You're that on steroids.