Although I agree with this bill, the NYT calling it “strict new ethics rules” is a bit much. Reading the requirements in the bill itself, it struck me as legislating that SCOTUS justices do the bare ethical minimum required of most every other judge - in other words, it’s the type of bill that shows up when an organization demonstrates that it is incapable of self-policing.

What’s shocking is 100% opposition by Republicans to a bill requiring a Justice to recuse if a close family member receives a large gift from a litigant - literally, that’s in the bill.

How is this controversial? Senator Graham says why - requiring the court to act ethically will “destroy” the court. He’s saying, we don’t care if justices are ethical so long as they’re partisan.

Congress needs to step up here.

  • CynAq
    link
    fedilink
    61 year ago

    You’re misunderstanding NYT’s position and intention on this when they call it “strict new ethics rules”. They are a neoliberal organization who’ll side with republicans more often than they do with progressives. They are trying to paint it in a bad, big government kinda sentiment when they call it “strict”.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      The word “strict” does not inherently mean bad or oppressive. It just means that the rules have teeth.

      • CynAq
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Yes. That’s why who said what, and in what context, matters.

    • @SCB
      link
      11 year ago

      Imagine being so delusionally perpetually online that you misread a NYT article so completely.