...and makes a few observations about the elephant in the room...uh...court*.

Quote

Justice Elena Kagan said on Friday that the Supreme Court should adopt a code of ethics, saying that “it would be a good thing for the court to do that.”

...she said that an ethics code “would, I think, go far in persuading other people that we were adhering to the highest standards of conduct.” She added that “I hope we can make progress.”

So what, or who, is standing in the way? She actively declined to say.

*She also said:

Quote

“You’re right that there have been times recently where there have been ideological divides with one side overturning precedent.” But she added: “I’m hopeful that it won’t have that year after year, case after case. At least it shouldn’t.”

She suggested that overruling precedents soon after a change in the composition of the court undermined its legitimacy.

“Adherence to precedent is important because it prevents the court from looking like a political actor, like an ideologically driven actor,” she said, adding that “when courts just overrule things, willy-nilly, it’s usually because, or sometimes it’s because, new judges have come on the scene.”

That, in turn, does harm to the judiciary’s authority, Justice Kagan said. “It makes people think that courts are just sort of making it up on the fly,” she said. “And that’s an extremely damaging thing for the judicial system and, I think, for our country.”

Gee, ya think?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2023 03:21PM by pdq.

Right on.

Quote

"It makes people think that courts are just sort of making it up on the fly," she said.

Yes it looks that way because that's exactly what the "conservative" majority of justices are doing.

---

e pluribus unum

It isn't like the ethics code needs to be complicated, just one line would be sufficient -

"If Thomas approves, it is unethical"

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

The German word for contraceptive is “Schwangerschaftsverhütungsmittel”. By the time you finished saying that, it’s too late

Will Justice Kagan still be taking free trips?

---

"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."

Quote
Smote
Will Justice Kagan still be taking free trips?

To speak at a University? To address the Federalist Society? To accept an award? Why not? Professionals in all fields do that.

To get your jimmies rustled at a dude ranch, paid for by someone with business before the court? No.

Quote
Acer

Quote
Smote
Will Justice Kagan still be taking free trips?

To speak at a University? To address the Federalist Society? To accept an award? Why not? Professionals in all fields do that.

To get your jimmies rustled at a dude ranch, paid for by someone with business before the court? No.

To attend a partisan fund raiser, don't all federal judges do that?

As well pointed out by some of the posters above, one of these things is not like the other, as much as some people would like to imply.

Quote
RgrF

Quote
Acer

Quote
Smote
Will Justice Kagan still be taking free trips?

To speak at a University? To address the Federalist Society? To accept an award? Why not? Professionals in all fields do that.

To get your jimmies rustled at a dude ranch, paid for by someone with business before the court? No.

To attend a partisan fund raiser, don't all federal judges do that?

Sure. Considering many local and state judges are elected, and the appointed ones are chose by politicians, parties are unavoidable. But then don't go blowing smoke about your "impartial originalist jurisprudence" when you know darn well who buttered your bread.