The Supreme Court on Monday adopted its first code of ethics, in the face of sustained criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some justices, but the code lacks a means of enforcement. The policy, agreed to by all nine justices, does not appear to impose any significant new requirements and leaves compliance entirely to each justice. Indeed, the justices said they have long adhered to ethics standards and suggested that criticism of the court over ethics was the product of misunderstanding, rather than any missteps by the justices.

The Supreme Court on Monday adopted its first code of ethics, in the face of sustained criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some justices, but the code lacks a means of enforcement. The policy, agreed to by all nine justices, does not appear to impose any significant new requirements and leaves compliance entirely to each justice. Indeed, the justices said they have long adhered to ethics standards and suggested that criticism of the court over ethics was the product of misunderstanding, rather than any missteps by the justices.

  • @[email protected]
    39•1 year ago

    Uhh “the product of misunderstanding” f*** you, justices are receiving goods and services from certain wealthy supporters while reveling in the antagonization of those supporters’ opponents.

    That is not a misunderstanding, that is justified outrage at corruption.

  • @derf82English
    24•1 year ago

    Since it is purely the honor system, it’s worthless.

    Anyone have and over/under in how many days before we learn one of them violated it?

      • @[email protected]
        6•1 year ago

        Oof. Not sure if you’re joking, or if I missed the latest controversy. Is it bad I’m not sure I wanna know?

        • snooggums
          11•1 year ago

          Well, 6 are members of the Republican party…

          C. NONDISCRIMINATORY MEMBERSHIP. A Justice should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.

    • @cogman
      17•1 year ago

      Even better, it also has added “these rules don’t apply if we feel like it’s necessary to ignore them” in the most critical section, the recusal section.

      The standards are low. The enforcement is zero. And where it counts, they put in discretionary outs so nobody can call them on their BS. Who do they think they’re kidding?

  • @hperrin
    11•1 year ago

    “Look, we put up strongly worded signs telling the alligators to stop eating all the children, I don’t know what more you people want.”