Said Stephen Breyer, quoted in "Justice Thomas Is ‘Man of Integrity’ Says Ex-Colleague Breyer" (Bloomberg).
Breyer... pushed back on the criticism that the Supreme Court does nothing on ethics... He said the difficulty with a code of ethics in the Supreme Court is that the justices can’t be replaced if they disqualify themselves like lower court judges.
Posts
42 comments:
Breyer, too, is a man of integrity. I heard him at a conference a few years ago, where he remarked upon the significance of the fact that more than 90% of the Court's work is nonpartisan, and even nonideological. The implication, to me, was that the Justices have to live with each other for a long time and they notice who is very very smart, who is less so, who is lazy, who works hard, who is trustworthy, and who they regard as interesting.
We see caricatures, they see actual people.
Acid-tripping Lucy in the tie-dyed firmament with compressed carbon...that's why they friggin' hate him.
Chuck with his Ginni Thomas conspiracy rant in 3...2...1...
My beef with the Supreme Court is not whether they have individual integrity, it's whether they have the collective courage to forcefully act to protect the basic freedoms in the Constitution. It's being progressively chipped away by the Executive branch, by activist judges at multiple levels who aren't being reined in, and by the DOJ in massive instances of dual-justice enforcement in numerous areas.
The Supreme Court is the final resort for bringing this country back to its senses, and they are not responding in our time of need.
They can’t pack the court, so they want to unpack the judges they don’t want.
The white left cannot stand that a black man has rich friends.
Only white leftists are allowed rich friends.
and - just being a black conservative is a crime to the Soviet left.
Desperate Soviet pro-abortionists on the march - against the Black man on the court.
It’s just another good reason to expand the Court to 13.
13 would equal the number of federal appellate circuits.
13 would reduce (however slightly) the intense pressure on individual nominations.
13 would make it easier (however slightly) for individual justices to simply bow out of cases where even an appearance of a conflict exists.
13 would help (perhaps significantly) reduce the notoriously heavy workload of SCOTUS.
Ask him what he thinks of Anita Hill.
This whole thing was a put up job.
The DoJ will indict Thomas if he doesn't resign. That is where this going.
Breyer gets a gold star in my book for that comment.
Breyer shouldn’t use words that liberals and progs don’t understand. Like “integrity.”
On the other hand… how can we lambast the media for not digging into the president’s son and the obvious corruption there, when we ask the supremes be off limits?
Pro publica is doing the job.
can some one detail what would be objectionable for a lower court judge having billionaire friend?
IOW is it unusual or just not talked about?
Breyer may trust him, but he also also may be trying to protect his legacy. Might be unsavory for one SC Justice throwing shade on another SC Justice. I wonder what he says behind closed doors.
Alito and Thomas were the two dissenters in todays USSC ruling to extend the stay in the Mifepristone case. When Trump’s three conservative Justices sided with the liberals, it says something about Alito and Thomas.
what if Elon offers to pay for ClarenceThomasTwitteringCheckmark
[is he not the richest richie on earth]
is that like first mate writing in ship log >> captain was sober today?
could Breyer have said all my [ex]colleagues have integrity!
When Trump’s three conservative Justices sided with the liberals, it says something about Alito and Thomas.
Please tell me what it says, Inga.
Have you read the opinions and understand their reasoning?
Alito and Thomas were the two dissenters in todays USSC ruling to extend the stay in the Mifepristone case. When Trump’s three conservative Justices sided with the liberals, it says something about Alito and Thomas.
The dullard opining again on things she knows nothing about. The attacks on Thomas have nothing to do with ethics. It is all about the affirmative action decision.
LLR-democratical and Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist Chuck comes out in favor of expanding the SC when a democratical is in the White House and the democraticals run the Senate.
When does Chuck NOT recommend expanding the SC? When republicans are in charge.
LOL
Giving the democraticals 4 extra seats on the SC....to "conserve conservatism"!...(wink wink)
Dave Begley said...
This whole thing was a put-up job.
Dave - ProPublica reported the history of Thomas and Crow and Clarence said he didn't understand the reporting rules, as if hiding the truth was honorable! How could he have ever believed that accepting expensive gifts demonstrated integrity? And yes, Virginia, several of billionaire Harlan Crow's organizations had interests heard by the court. "Quid Pro Crow," methinks.
I never before believed the Anita Hill charges but this current dodge from Justice Thomas worries me about the deep past.
Dave Begley said...
This whole thing was a put-up job.
Dave - ProPublica reported the history of Thomas and Crow and Clarence said he didn't understand the reporting rules, as if hiding the truth was honorable! How could he have ever believed that accepting expensive gifts demonstrated integrity? And yes, Virginia, several of billionaire Harlan Crow's organizations had interests heard by the court. "Quid Pro Crow," methinks.
I never before believed the Anita Hill charges but this current dodge from Justice Thomas worries me about the deep past.
I never once proposed giving "four seats" on the Supreme Court to the current president.
I would oppose such a proposal.
I would condition Court expansion on a revamping of the Judiciary Act, including the rules on Senate confirmations of Article II judges. The President would pick judicial nominees from a list prepared by a federal nominating committee, and 60 Senate votes would be required for confirmation. And the four additional SCOTUS seats would be created over the course of the next three presidential administrations, with no administration being allowed to nominate more than three Justices, including replacements.
I know that this is a much better response than what your hatefully moronic comment merited, Drago. But there are other commenters here.
Inga
“When Trump’s three conservative Justices sided with the liberals, it says something about Alito and Thomas”. No, it says something about the integrity of the court which you question.
as per Ayn Rand : describes integrity as “loyalty to one's convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one's values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality.”
so it follows all Justices have integrity to their Ideology when they write opinions.
the country has to live with what is majority opinion.
Q: should opinion have any relation to reality?
"He said the difficulty with a code of ethics in the Supreme Court is that the justices can’t be replaced if they disqualify themselves like lower court judges."
?????
Abe Fortas ???
"can some one detail what would be objectionable for a lower court judge having billionaire friend?
IOW is it unusual or just not talked about?"
I have a buddy who's a lower court judge. He won't even let me buy him a beer. Like most Judges, and unlike Justice Thomas, he understands that the first rule is to avoid even the appearance of bias or impropriety. Justice John Harlan took this rule so seriously that he wouldn't even vote while he was on the bench.
by ruling to extend the stay are they not promisending FDA will prevail?
“the difficulty with a code of ethics in the Supreme Court is that the justices can’t be replaced if they disqualify themselves like lower court judges”
There are obvious solutions to that difficulty. If a lower court judge can be replaced for an ethics code violation, why can’t a Supreme Court Justice? I see nothing in Article III of the Constitution that makes that distinction.
Now, it may be that some of the gifts that Clarence Thomas accepted fall within the personal hospitality section of the current ethics rules. If so, isn’t that a bad rule? It seems to me that the gifts are of a size that should be reportable. But Justice Thomas is trying to hide behind a rule that the Supreme Court Justices say don’t apply to them. It would be a better defense if he could say the rule did apply to him.
The usual suspects really are a bunch of racists.
Can't let a black guy get him some reparations unless it comes from the massa's hand, eh guys.
LLR-democratical and Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist Chuck,: "I know that this is a much better response than what your hatefully moronic comment merited, Drago."
My comment was spot on. Again. As always.
Obviously.
Maybe you should get your sidekick lonejustice to chime in on your behalf.
Rusty: "The usual suspects really are a bunch of racists."
Correct, and it should be noted that LLR-democratical and Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist Chuck in particular has repeatedly and gleefully lobbed quite ugly vicious racist attacks against black conservatives like Clarence Thomas and Ben Carson, amongst others.
Also noted that LLR-democratical Chuck actually tried to shift the blame for his vicious racist attacks against black conservatives onto Trump!
LLR-democratical Chuck is just another pro-dem lawfare flack.
Obviously, they're trying to smear Justice Thomas with innuendo, but he didn't violate any rules. Now, if a case in which Crow had a direct interest came before the court, Thomas would have to recuse himself.
"He said the difficulty with a code of ethics in the Supreme Court is that the justices can’t be replaced if they disqualify themselves like lower court judges."
========
why not 'expand' to have seats for each State = 50 at present
this can even be each State Supreme Court Chief on standby!
ankle bracelet with GPS along with black robes on appointment confirmations?
Mutaman said...
"He said the difficulty with a code of ethics in the Supreme Court is that the justices can’t be replaced if they disqualify themselves like lower court judges."
?????
Abe Fortas ???
I think I agree with your questioning Breyer. But perhaps I can articulate it better.
First, Breyer has a good, and long-understood point about "Supreme Court Justice recusal." There are lots of problems with that. Whether it is a U.S. Supreme Court or a state supreme court, it is always a dark possibility that litigants could game a recusal situation at a supreme court level, where there is no one to fill in for a justice at that level. A trial court judge can recuse, and the case can be reassigned to another judge or even another equivalent court. At an intermediate appellate level, with panels of appellate judges drawn from a wider pool, they too can be replaced. Breyer is right; you can't "replace" a supreme court justice.
Second, I don't know why the conflict/recusal problem identified above would mean that SCOTUS can't have a far better working code of ethics. Recusals in cases of conflict are just one small part of a wider system of ethical enforcement. We're now sort of at the point where the entire nation would demand Thomas' recusal if a "Harlan Crow-party" case ever reached the Court. But there is at least a question right now if Thomas' multiple failures to disclose, and his acceptance of "hospitality" from someone like Crow, and perhaps even his wife's multiple eye-popping political entanglements may mean that Thomas should no longer serve on the Court. That the "appearance of impropriety," with or without any technical illegality, is too much at this point. The "appearance of impropriety" problem is an issue shared by all judges, state or federal; trial or appellate.
Third; Abe Fortas. Reviewing the Abe Fortas case is a fascinating endeavor these days. Reviewing that entire period of the Court is fascinating. There is of course a very good argument that the case for demanding Thomas' immediate resignation is stronger than the demand for Fortas' resignation. It's also a remarkable political history lesson. A Democratic-majority Congress was complaining about the Democratic-nominated Fortas, at a time when a Republican president would replace Fortas. Really remarkable stuff. And it was only a few years after President Johnson told a sitting Justice (Clark) that if he would resign, Johnson would name his son Ramsey Clark as Attorney General. All to open a seat for the purpose of nominating Thurgood Marshall to the Court.
Chuck,
If you don't want to be accused of carrying water for Democrats, your proposal needs to be explicitly bi-partisan in how to add the 4 new justices. In short, it needs to be like this or very close to it:
(1) The new justices selected are nominated by the Senate Majority Leader and the Senate Minority Leader- with each getting only two selections;
(2) No new justice gets a seat until all four are confirmed by the Senate.
What say you, Chuck, you dumb fuck?
There is a simple solution for questions of recusal without replacement of a judge for the decision- one of the judges on the opposite side offers to recuse, too. It would be the professional way to address the issue. What would otherwise be 5-4 decision becomes 4-3, or what would be 6-3 becomes 5-2, etc.
Senators do this all the time when one member would rather not be present (has very severe scheduling conflicts, usually) for closely decided votes- they simply trade absences that don't affect the outcome of the vote.
While I don’t ordinarily answer questioners who insult me as a “dumb fuck,” I will go ahead and let you know that the notion of paired recusals at the Supreme Court is one that no serious legal scholar, no serious appellate lawyer, no legal ethicist and no appellate judge or justice has ever suggested as a serious solution.*
Judicial ethics need to be strict, so as to work prophylactically. Avoid all manner of conflicts before they can arise so as to necessitate refusals.
*I’d like you to please attempt to prove me wrong by locating some scholarly/legal publications where anyone discusses your paired-recusal idea. Post your search results.
"I never before believed the Anita Hill charges but this current dodge from Justice Thomas worries me about the deep past."
Hmmm. I always believed Anita Hill's charges.
Cook: "Hmmm. I always believed Anita Hill's charges."
LOL
Of course.
I took Thomas’ side in his confirmation hearing. So that’s where I come from.
But as for Justice Breyer trying to vouch for Thomas; it’s fine as far as it goes, but has anyone asked Breyer specifically if he knew everything that we now know about Thomas? Did Breyer know about all of the Harlan Crow hospitality as it was happening? Did Breyer know about the sale of Thomas’ mother’s home? How much does Breyer know, about Ginni Thomas income - reported and unreported - and the sources of that income? Or about Ginni Thomas post-2020 election activities?
I don’t disbelieve that Thomas was an honorable colleague as far as Breyer knew; but how far did Breyer know?
Post a Comment