The other body with the power to investigate, and to punish if they find wrongdoing, is Congress.
Only someone who was confident in his faction's ability to control Congress forever would hamstring the Supreme Court. Corruption might just be the price (whether or not it is too high) that one pays to make certain that there are some speed bumps in the way of the House and Senate if they ever got too far out of whack.
Let's not lump together making it illegal for federal judges to accept gifts from people with business before the federal courts and limiting the power of the courts. Those are very different things.
In Article III Section 1 of the constitution says this about federal judges: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." Interpreting the constitution so that my bad behavior is not bad behavior any more looks to me like it oversteps the bounds, and since laws are only proposed and enacted by congress I'd say it's pretty clear that congress has the right and duty to define bad behavior.
> Only someone who was confident in his faction's ability to control Congress forever would hamstring the Supreme Court.
I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Especially in light that it takes a supermajority of the Senate to remove someone from the court, not just control of the Senate.
> that one pays to make certain that there are some speed bumps in the way of the House and Senate if they ever got too far out of whack.
Direct election of members of congress is the better speedbump.
> Only someone who was confident in his faction's ability to control Congress forever would hamstring the Supreme Court
Codes of conduct don’t constrain the Court, they constrain individual judges and justices. That’s the advantage of putting the enforcement within the judiciary, versus the executive (prosecution) or legislature (impeachment).
Corruption means there won’t be speed bumps, at least for certain legislation that appeals to those doing the corrupting. That’s a bit part of the problem here.
JumpCrisscross|2 years ago
Did they? I thought the issue is the Chief Justice hasn’t bothered to investigate. Instead, it’s the Clarence Thomas show.
carlmr|2 years ago
NoMoreNicksLeft|2 years ago
Only someone who was confident in his faction's ability to control Congress forever would hamstring the Supreme Court. Corruption might just be the price (whether or not it is too high) that one pays to make certain that there are some speed bumps in the way of the House and Senate if they ever got too far out of whack.
vajrabum|2 years ago
In Article III Section 1 of the constitution says this about federal judges: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." Interpreting the constitution so that my bad behavior is not bad behavior any more looks to me like it oversteps the bounds, and since laws are only proposed and enacted by congress I'd say it's pretty clear that congress has the right and duty to define bad behavior.
anonymouskimmer|2 years ago
I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Especially in light that it takes a supermajority of the Senate to remove someone from the court, not just control of the Senate.
> that one pays to make certain that there are some speed bumps in the way of the House and Senate if they ever got too far out of whack.
Direct election of members of congress is the better speedbump.
JumpCrisscross|2 years ago
Codes of conduct don’t constrain the Court, they constrain individual judges and justices. That’s the advantage of putting the enforcement within the judiciary, versus the executive (prosecution) or legislature (impeachment).
matthewdgreen|2 years ago