But she also said the justices already agree they should hold themselves to the highest ethical standards possible.
“I think that’s something that I can’t really speak for the court about or make any sort of guess,” she said.
Barrett spoke as part of a lecture series named for Stein that has also brought to the university Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Chief Justice John Roberts. But security in and around the auditorium was notably tighter than for the other justices, following calls by activist groups to protest against Barrett’s appearance.
“But she also said the justices already agree they should hold themselves to the highest ethical standards possible.”
They literally don’t agree on that. Justice Thomas thinks he’s done everything peachy and would have to be literally stupid to think there wasn’t a more ethical way for him to conduct his affairs regarding accepting money and favors from influential party insiders.
A bold-faced lie from someone who lied during her confirmation hearing?! Who would have thought
Perjured.
And I doubt the justices on the left agree that Clarence Thomas believes he should hold himself to the highest ethical standards possible.
You might be surprised, sadly.
Zach Galifianakis has aged a lot
For myself, I do not recognize Amy Coney Barrett as a legitimately appointed member of the Supreme Court. She’s there, and nothing will change that, but for myself, when I see her I am looking at an imposter who was given a stolen seat, a hack who did not earn that chair and does not have the moral right to sit in it, and who is a complete disgrace to so many of those amazing jurists who went before her.
But I saw the headline and thought, what the hell, maybe she actually said something worthwhile, and read the full article anyway: sometimes new jurists bring new energy, sometimes even my cynical eyes are surprised. So I read it.
Nope. Not a shred of shame, not a scrap of actionable content. Made noises about justices upholding the highest standards, “demurred” about how long it will take for the SC to begin to enforce self-regulation in ethical behavior, but said absolutely nothing substantive. Couldn’t address actual ethics violations, or how regulation of those violations might look in reality outside their own hands, literally nothing that has any meaning in reality or actual regulation of the court.
In other words, anything that actually matters, she could not bring herself to touch.
Welcome the Handmaiden of the far right, blessed be the fucking fruit.
Shes gonna be really confused when she figures out what those words mean though.
The only thing I can say for Barrett is that she’s been marginally less awful than I expected, which I can’t say for Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.
Gorsuch is at least predictable. He has a very established ideology and tends to remain consistent with it, such as finding that the Civil Right Act banning discrimination on the basis of sex implies that an employer cannot discriminate against someone in a relationship with a man simply because that employee is a man. He’s also pretty passionate about Native American rights. Kavanaugh at least attempts to maintain some level of intellectual consistency and respectability.
Meanwhile, Alito and Thomas are utter shameless hacks.
Kavanaugh has been marginally less awful than I expected, occasionally siding with Roberts and the liberal justices for pretty much any 5-4 decisions that go against the conservatives. For instance, on the Alabama voting rights case. I think he’s the median justice now. Which isn’t saying a lot, but beat my expectations for him.
I still believe a good solution is that the supreme court should be split by the % party control in congress. No one is completely impartial so the judges would also need to disclose what party they fall under. And as majority shifts the judges with the most time there would be rotated out.
I don’t really think this solution is perfect, but I think it’s better than what we have.
There issue then is that you’re likely to end up with a SCOTUS that always agrees with the ruling party.
My proposal would be to retire the longest-serving justice each time there is a presidential election, then use the national popular vote to decide which party gets to select his replacement.
Many of the judges wind up evolving in ways you wouldn’t entirely expect. Gorsuch and Roberts, for instance, wound up ruling that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected under the Civil Rights act.
