It's Time To Impeach The First SCOTUS Judge Since 1804

[Pangean]

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges was initially adopted by the Judicial Conference on April 5, 1973, and was known as the "Code of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges


http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judge...-states-judges

Code of conduct does not apply to the SCOTUS. Try again.

[Orlong]

Supreme Court is not covered by the code.

Which was decided by the Supreme Court. Funny how they think they shouldnt abide by the same code of conduct that every other judge in the nation have to abide by

[kail]

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges was initially adopted by the Judicial Conference on April 5, 1973, and was known as the "Code of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges
http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judge...-states-judges

You forgot to quote this part.

This Code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges. Certain provisions of this Code apply to special masters and commissioners as indicated in the “Compliance” section. The Tax Court, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have adopted this Code.

[Pangean]

Which was decided by the Supreme Court. Funny how they think they shouldnt abide by the same code of conduct that every other judge in the nation have to abide by

What does this have to do with your attempts to say it applies to them when it doesn't?

[kail]

Which was decided by the Supreme Court. Funny how they think they shouldnt abide by the same code of conduct that every other judge in the nation have to abide by

Well now time to quote you.

Maybe thats how it works in socialist Europe, but its not how it is supposed to work in the USA. The point of having a law is for it to be followed to the letter. If you think the law no longer should apply or should be amended based on current morals, then there is a process for that

This is pretty easy.

[TZucchini]

As long as she can remain unbiased (as much as is humanly possible, at least) in her rulings, I really don't care what she thinks of Donald Trump. Nor any other candidate.

- - - Updated - - -

No but breaking the Judicial code of conduct is which these comments violate

Then change the judicial code. I mean, breaking news, humans have opinions.

[Garnier Fructis]

Ginsburg was appointed by President Bill Clinton wonder why she said what she said. In 200 years never seen a SCOTUS Judge do something like this. It all comes back around to the Clinton's tho some how some connection. Never liked her anyway need more people like Antonin Scali RIP in the SC.

Scalia ruled based on how he thought the world was, not on how the world actually was. We don't need more people who are stuck out of time.

[Pangean]

It's ok Trump followers. Here's Donald's solution to deal with Ginsburg:

"If I win the Presidency, we will swamp Justice Ginsburg with real judges and real legal opinions!"

Legal genius at it's finest.

[Starscream101]

Code of conduct does not apply to the SCOTUS. Try again.

So let me get this straight the Lower Courts are held to Code of Conduct but the highest court in the land is not and I should have confidence in that? Must be topsy-turvy world. If its good enough for every other Judge in the country should not SCOTUS not even be held to a HIGHER code of conduct.

[Ghostpanther]

As long as she can remain unbiased (as much as is humanly possible, at least) in her rulings, I really don't care what she thinks of Donald Trump. Nor any other candidate.

Which she may be able to in your eyes. But that does not mean others would think she is being unbiased. In truth, no Supreme Court Justice can be unbiased 100% of the time. Which is why we have conservative and liberal labeled judges. But they should at least maintain some degree of professionalism to the public as being fair.

[Drakain]

Well, given the number of justices on the court right now, it's probably alright if one of them is in a position that they'll need to recuse themselves in the events of a Bush/Gore Fiasco.

[Ghostpanther]

So let me get this straight the Lower Courts are held to Code of Conduct but the highest court in the land is not and I should have confidence in that? Must be topsy-turvy world. If its good enough for every other Judge in the country should not SCOTUS not even be held to a HIGHER code of conduct.

I absolutely agree. But I also think they should not be appointed as life time appointments. But this will never change until the people demand it does.

[GennGreymane]

Not necessarily. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii I do agree that would be the normal reason, it does not mean it has to be a crime but a violation of doing the job in good behavior. But since a impeachment needs 2/3 of the Senate to become effective, not going to happen. Does not mean however that public and congressional calls for her to step down can not be successful.

which is highly doubtful, she is as loved and hated as Scalia.

[Pangean]

So let me get this straight the Lower Courts are held to Code of Conduct but the highest court in the land is not and I should have confidence in that? Must be topsy-turvy world. If its good enough for every other Judge in the country should not SCOTUS not even be held to a HIGHER code of conduct.

I think if you actually read what I wrote you will see I never said anything of the sort. Simply pointed out that the SCOTUS is not covered by that code as multiple people have claimed. In other posts I have suggested they should be.

[PragmaticGamer]

I'm guessing the OP is perfectly okay with Thomas and Alito having taken bribes from litigants before them?

[Kasierith]

It's kind of silly how completely thin skinned the anti PC crowd is. In order to impeach her, one would have to demonstrate a causation of said impact on her decisions as a justice, and the only way to do that is if she weighs in on a decision with no supporting arguments. All this really is is Trump fanboys grumping as usual.

[Backlashe]

Cool, come back as she actually publicly endorses or opposes a candidate. She revealed her opinion about a candidate, which is an entirely different thing.

Exactly

/thread

[Kasierith]

I absolutely agree. But I also think they should not be appointed as life time appointments. But this will never change until the people demand it does.

Why? The only result would be that instead of doing anything about deliberations, they would be fundraising, and every decision they make will be compromised by having to appeal to their primary voters for next term. The lower courts are pretty much a complete shitfest right now because of it.

[Orlong]

Which she may be able to in your eyes. But that does not mean others would think she is being unbiased. In truth, no Supreme Court Justice can be unbiased 100% of the time. Which is why we have conservative and liberal labeled judges. But they should at least maintain some degree of professionalism to the public as being fair.

Which is why in order for a decision to be valid, it should have to be a 9-0 unanimous decision. This would encourage judges to put aside any political bias they have and rule based on law. Juries in any normal case have to have a unanimous decision for it to be valid and it should be the same for the SCOTUS

[Tijuana]

Code of conduct does not apply to the SCOTUS. Try again.

It's not legally relevant to the SCOTUS, likely for the reasons of making it as hard as possible to remove a justice.

But, do you think doing things that violate that code is ethical or morally correct behavior? Can she do this and say this is something a good person would do?