Charge him with what, exactly? He has a first amendment right to fly whatever politically divisive flag he (or his wife if we’re to believe him) chooses, just as anyone else does. As far as I’m aware, the Supreme Court still has no legally-binding ethics rules, so no matter how clear a bias he shows, there’s no crime to prosecute. His recusal is at his sole discretion.
I don’t know if the legislative branch has the authority to codify a legally enforceable code of ethics that has some backbone, but even if they do I’m sure someone would fight it up to the Supreme Court where they’d just nullify it anyway.
Charge him with what, exactly? He has a first amendment right to fly whatever politically divisive flag he (or his wife if we’re to believe him) chooses, just as anyone else does. As far as I’m aware, the Supreme Court still has no legally-binding ethics rules, so no matter how clear a bias he shows, there’s no crime to prosecute. His recusal is at his sole discretion.
I don’t know if the legislative branch has the authority to codify a legally enforceable code of ethics that has some backbone, but even if they do I’m sure someone would fight it up to the Supreme Court where they’d just nullify it anyway.
Then our system of government is imperfect and should be changed. By the people, for the people.