The Supreme Court on Monday adopted its first code of ethics, in the face of sustained criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some justices, but the code lacks a means of enforcement. The policy, agreed to by all nine justices, does not appear to impose any significa...
The Supreme Court on Monday adopted its first code of ethics, in the face of sustained criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some justices, but the code lacks a means of enforcement. The policy, agreed to by all nine justices, does not appear to impose any significant new requirements and leaves compliance entirely to each justice. Indeed, the justices said they have long adhered to ethics standards and suggested that criticism of the court over ethics was the product of misunderstanding, rather than any missteps by the justices.
Uhh "the product of misunderstanding" f*** you, justices are receiving goods and services from certain wealthy supporters while reveling in the antagonization of those supporters' opponents.
That is not a misunderstanding, that is justified outrage at corruption.
Seriously, read this thing. It's full of "should" and "should not", but quite lacking in "must" and "must not". Who cares about enforcement when the damn thing doesn't cover anything important?
Even better, it also has added "these rules don't apply if we feel like it's necessary to ignore them" in the most critical section, the recusal section.
The standards are low. The enforcement is zero. And where it counts, they put in discretionary outs so nobody can call them on their BS. Who do they think they're kidding?