Justice Scalia & Justice Thomas

[sangha]

State Bar of Georgia - Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct

One more example. Notice, no discussion in re Jurisdiction.

I just know Cecelia has already pointed out that this is irrelevant, but let me show you just how irrelevant.

There is no judicial code of ethics that applies to the Supreme Court of the United States. You can quote all the state codes you like, and even the federal code which is here.

Codes of Conduct

None of them actually apply though.

This post by Quantum Windbag is emblam'atic of too many on this message board. Posts which boldly lie when the facts belie their opinion.
This type of dishonesty has two very real consequences: nothing QW posts can ever be taken on face value (s/he has lost trust) and the argument s/he hopes to offer adds credence to whatever they hope to discredit (for if implies no real evidence exists to disprove what offends their opinion).

QW, like all the other wingnuts, does not have the honesty or the courage to defend his own words. For all his blather about principles, QW never fails to beat a hasty retreat from his own words when challenged. He can't even admit to what he said himself

How much shame must QW feel that he feels he has to deny what he said in black and white? He says that there is no code of conduct for SCOTUS, and when challenged, he whines that people are "assuming" he said it

]

There is no judicial code of ethics that applies to the Supreme Court of the United States

QW, why don't you tell us again about how you never said this?

 

[Intense]

Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees

Introduction
This Code of Conduct applies to all employees of the Judicial Branch except Justices; judges; and employees of the United States Supreme Court, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Federal Judicial Center, the Sentencing Commission, and Federal Public Defender offices.(1) As used in this code in canons 3F(2)(b), 3F(5), 4B(2), 4C(1), and 5B, a member of a judge's personal staff means a judge's secretary, a judge's law clerk, and a courtroom deputy clerk or court reporter whose assignment with a particular judge is reasonably perceived as being comparable to a member of the judge's personal staff.(2)

Contractors and other nonemployees who serve the Judiciary are not covered by this code, but appointing authorities may impose these or similar ethical standards on such nonemployees, as appropriate.

The Judicial Conference has authorized its Committee on Codes of Conduct to render advisory opinions concerning the application and interpretation of this code. Employees should consult with their supervisor and/or appointing authority for guidance on questions concerning this code and its applicability before a request for an advisory opinion is made to the Committee on Codes of Conduct. In assessing the propriety of one's proposed conduct, a judicial employee should take care to consider all relevant canons in this code, the Ethics Reform Act, and other applicable statutes and regulations(3) (e.g., receipt of a gift may implicate canon 2 as well as canon 4C(2) and the Ethics Reform Act gift regulations). Should a question remain after this consultation, the affected judicial employee, or the chief judge, supervisor, or appointing authority of such employee, may request an advisory opinion from the Committee. Requests for advisory opinions may be addressed to the Chairman of the Committee on Codes of Conduct in care of the General Counsel, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, One Columbus Circle, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20544.


Adopted September 19, 1995
by the Judicial Conference of the United States
Effective January 1, 1996(4)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Justices and employees of the Supreme Court are subject to standards established by the Justices of that Court. Judges are subject to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Employees of the AO and the FJC are subject to their respective agency codes. Employees of the Sentencing Commission are subject to standards established by the Commission. Federal public defender employees are subject to the Code of Conduct for Federal Public Defender Employees. When Actually Employed (WAE) employees are subject to canons 1, 2, and 3 and such other provisions of this code as may be determined by the appointing authority.

2 Employees who occupy positions with functions and responsibilities similar to those for a particular position identified in this code should be guided by the standards applicable to that position, even if the position title differs. When in doubt, employees may seek an advisory opinion as to the applicability of specific code provisions.

3 See Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures, Volume II, Chapter VI, Statutory and Regulatory Provisions Relating to the Conduct of Judges and Judicial Employees.

4 Canon 3F(4) was revised at the March 2001 Judicial Conference.

CANON 1: A JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY AND OF THE JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE'S OFFICE
An independent and honorable Judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judicial employee should personally observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the Judiciary are preserved and the judicial employee's office reflects a devotion to serving the public. Judicial employees should require adherence to such standards by personnel subject to their direction and control. The provisions of this code should be construed and applied to further these objectives. The standards of this code shall not affect or preclude other more stringent standards required by law, by court order, or by the appointing authority.

CANON 2: A JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES
A judicial employee should not engage in any activities that would put into question the propriety of the judicial employee's conduct in carrying out the duties of the office. A judicial employee should not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence official conduct or judgment. A judicial employee should not lend the prestige of the office to advance or to appear to advance the private interests of others. A judicial employee should not use public office for private gain.

CANON 3: A JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE SHOULD ADHERE TO APPROPRIATE STANDARDS IN PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE
In performing the duties prescribed by law, by resolution of the Judicial Conference of the United States, by court order, or by the judicial employee's appointing authority, the following standards apply:

A. A judicial employee should respect and comply with the law and these canons. A judicial employee should report to the appropriate supervising authority any attempt to induce the judicial employee to violate these canons.

Note: A number of criminal statutes of general applicability govern federal employees' performance of official duties. These include:

18 U.S.C. § 201 (bribery of public officials and witnesses);
18 U.S.C. § 211 (acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office);
18 U.S.C. § 285 (taking or using papers relating to government claims);
18 U.S.C. § 287 (false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims against the government);
18 U.S.C. § 508 (counterfeiting or forging transportation requests);
18 U.S.C. § 641 (embezzlement or conversion of government money, property, or records);
18 U.S.C. § 643 (failing to account for public money);
18 U.S.C. § 798 and 50 U.S.C. § 783 (disclosure of classified information);
18 U.S.C. § 1001 (fraud or false statements in a government matter);
18 U.S.C. § 1719 (misuse of franking privilege);
18 U.S.C. § 2071 (concealing, removing, or mutilating a public record);
31 U.S.C. § 1344 (misuse of government vehicle);
31 U.S.C. § 3729 (false claims against the government).
In addition, provisions of specific applicability to court officers include:

18 U.S.C. §§ 153, 154 (court officers embezzling or purchasing property from bankruptcy estate);
18 U.S.C. § 645 (embezzlement and theft by court officers);
18 U.S.C. § 646 (court officers failing to deposit registry moneys);
18 U.S.C. § 647 (receiving loans from registry moneys from court officer).
This is not a comprehensive listing but sets forth some of the more significant provisions with which judicial employees should be familiar.

B. A judicial employee should be faithful to professional standards and maintain competence in the judicial employee's profession.

C. A judicial employee should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to all persons with whom the judicial employee deals in an official capacity, including the general public, and should require similar conduct of personnel subject to the judicial employee's direction and control. A judicial employee should diligently discharge the responsibilities of the office in a prompt, efficient, nondiscriminatory, fair, and professional manner. A judicial employee should never influence or attempt to influence the assignment of cases, or perform any discretionary or ministerial function of the court in a manner that improperly favors any litigant or attorney, nor should a judicial employee imply that he or she is in a position to do so.

D. A judicial employee should avoid making public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action and should require similar restraint by personnel subject to the judicial employee's direction and control. This proscription does not extend to public statements made in the course of official duties or to the explanation of court procedures. A judicial employee should never disclose any confidential information received in the course of official duties except as required in the performance of such duties, nor should a judicial employee employ such information for personal gain. A former judicial employee should observe the same restrictions on disclosure of confidential information that apply to a current judicial employee, except as modified by the appointing authority.

E. A judicial employee should not engage in nepotism prohibited by law.

Note: See also 5 U.S.C. § 3110 (employment of relatives); 28 U.S.C. § 458 (employment of judges' relatives).

F. Conflicts of Interest.

(1) A judicial employee should avoid conflicts of interest in the performance of official duties. A conflict of interest arises when a judicial employee knows that he or she (or the spouse, minor child residing in the judicial employee's household, or other close relative of the judicial employee) might be so personally or financially affected by a matter that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question the judicial employee's ability properly to perform official duties in an impartial manner.

(2) Certain judicial employees, because of their relationship to a judge or the nature of their duties, are subject to the following additional restrictions:

(a) A staff attorney or law clerk should not perform any official duties in any matter with respect to which such staff attorney or law clerk knows that:
(i) he or she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(ii) he or she served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he or she previously practiced law had served (during such association) as a lawyer concerning the matter, or he, she, or such lawyer has been a material witness;

(iii) he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding;

(iv) he or she, a spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship,(1) or the spouse of such person (A) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; (B) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (C) has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or (D) is likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;

(v) he or she has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.

(b) A secretary to a judge, or a courtroom deputy or court reporter whose assignment with a particular judge is reasonably perceived as being comparable to a member of the judge's personal staff, should not perform any official duties in any matter with respect to which such secretary, courtroom deputy, or court reporter knows that he or she, a spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such person (i) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; (ii) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or (iv) is likely to be a material witness in the proceeding; provided, however, that when the foregoing restriction presents undue hardship, the judge may authorize the secretary, courtroom deputy, or court reporter to participate in the matter if no reasonable alternative exists and adequate safeguards are in place to ensure that official duties are properly performed. In the event the secretary, courtroom deputy, or court reporter possesses any of the foregoing characteristics and so advises the judge, the judge should also consider whether the Code of Conduct for United States Judges may require the judge to recuse.
(c) A probation or pretrial services officer should not perform any official duties in any matter with respect to which the probation or pretrial services officer knows that:

(i) he or she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party;

(ii) he or she is related within the third degree of relationship to a party to the proceeding, or to an officer, director, or trustee of a party, or to a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) he or she, or a relative within the third degree of relationship, has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 As used in this code, the third degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system to include the following relatives: parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, great grandparent, great grandchild, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece and nephew.

(3) When a judicial employee knows that a conflict of interest may be presented, the judicial employee should promptly inform his or her appointing authority. The appointing authority, after determining that a conflict or the appearance of a conflict of interest exists, should take appropriate steps to restrict the judicial employee's performance of official duties in such matter so as to avoid a conflict or the appearance of a conflict of interest. A judicial employee should observe any restrictions imposed by his or her appointing authority in this regard.

(4) A judicial employee who is subject to canon 3F(2) should keep informed about his or her personal, financial and fiduciary interests and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about such interests of a spouse or minor child residing in the judicial employee's household. For purposes of this canon, "financial interest" means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, advisor, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:

(i) ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a "financial interest" in such securities unless the employee participates in the management of the fund;

(ii) an office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a "financial interest" in securities held by the organization;

(iii) the proprietary interest of a policy holder in a mutual insurance company, or a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a "financial interest" in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;

(iv) ownership of government securities is a "financial interest" in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.

(5) A member of a judge's personal staff should inform the appointing judge of any circumstance or activity of the staff member that might serve as a basis for disqualification of either the staff member or the judge, in a matter pending before the judge.

CANON 4: IN ENGAGING IN OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES, A JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE SHOULD AVOID THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH OFFICIAL DUTIES, SHOULD AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, AND SHOULD COMPLY WITH DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
A. Outside Activities. A judicial employee's activities outside of official duties should not detract from the dignity of the court, interfere with the performance of official duties, or adversely reflect on the operation and dignity of the court or office the judicial employee serves. Subject to the foregoing standards and the other provisions of this code, a judicial employee may engage in such activities as civic, charitable, religious, professional, educational, cultural, avocational, social, fraternal, and recreational activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach. If such outside activities concern the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, the judicial employee should first consult with the appointing authority to determine whether the proposed activities are consistent with the foregoing standards and the other provisions of this code.

B. Solicitation of Funds. A judicial employee may solicit funds in connection with outside activities, subject to the following limitations:

(1) A judicial employee should not use or permit the use of the prestige of the office in the solicitation of funds.
(2) A judicial employee should not solicit subordinates to contribute funds to any such activity but may provide information to them about a general fund-raising campaign. A member of a judge's personal staff should not solicit any court personnel to contribute funds to any such activity under circumstances where the staff member's close relationship to the judge could reasonably be construed to give undue weight to the solicitation.
(3) A judicial employee should not solicit or accept funds from lawyers or other persons likely to come before the judicial employee or the court or office the judicial employee serves, except as an incident to a general fund-raising activity.
C. Financial Activities.

(1) A judicial employee should refrain from outside financial and business dealings that tend to detract from the dignity of the court, interfere with the proper performance of official duties, exploit the position, or associate the judicial employee in a substantial financial manner with lawyers or other persons likely to come before the judicial employee or the court or office the judicial employee serves, provided, however, that court reporters are not prohibited from providing reporting services for compensation to the extent permitted by statute and by the court. A member of a judge's personal staff should consult with the appointing judge concerning any financial and business activities that might reasonably be interpreted as violating this code and should refrain from any activities that fail to conform to the foregoing standards or that the judge concludes may otherwise give rise to an appearance of impropriety.
(2) A judicial employee should not solicit or accept a gift from anyone seeking official action from or doing business with the court or other entity served by the judicial employee, or from anyone whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of official duties; except that a judicial employee may accept a gift as permitted by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and the Judicial Conference regulations thereunder. A judicial employee should endeavor to prevent a member of a judicial employee's family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting any such gift except to the extent that a judicial employee would be permitted to do so by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and the Judicial Conference regulations thereunder.
Note: See 5 U.S.C. § 7353 (gifts to federal employees). See also 5 U.S.C. § 7342 (foreign gifts); 5 U.S.C. § 7351 (gifts to superiors).

(3) A judicial employee should report the value of gifts to the extent a report is required by the Ethics Reform Act, other applicable law, or the Judicial Conference of the United States.
Note: See 5 U.S.C. App. §§ 101 to 111 (Ethics Reform Act financial disclosure provisions).

(4) During judicial employment, a law clerk or staff attorney may seek and obtain employment to commence after the completion of the judicial employment. However, the law clerk or staff attorney should first consult with the appointing authority and observe any restrictions imposed by the appointing authority. If any law firm, lawyer, or entity with whom a law clerk or staff attorney has been employed or is seeking or has obtained future employment appears in any matter pending before the appointing authority, the law clerk or staff attorney should promptly bring this fact to the attention of the appointing authority.
D. Practice of Law. A judicial employee should not engage in the practice of law except that a judicial employee may act pro se, may perform routine legal work incident to the management of the personal affairs of the judicial employee or a member of the judicial employee's family, and may provide pro bono legal services in civil matters, so long as such pro se, family, or pro bono legal work does not present an appearance of impropriety, does not take place while on duty or in the judicial employee's workplace, and does not interfere with the judicial employee's primary responsibility to the office in which the judicial employee serves, and further provided that:

(1) in the case of pro se legal work, such work is done without compensation (other than such compensation as may be allowed by statute or court rule in probate proceedings);
(2) in the case of family legal work, such work is done without compensation (other than such compensation as may be allowed by statute or court rule in probate proceedings) and does not involve the entry of an appearance in a federal court;
(3) in the case of pro bono legal services, such work (a) is done without compensation; (b) does not involve the entry of an appearance in any federal, state, or local court or administrative agency; (c) does not involve a matter of public controversy, an issue likely to come before the judicial employee's court, or litigation against federal, state or local government; and (d) is reviewed in advance with the appointing authority to determine whether the proposed services are consistent with the foregoing standards and the other provisions of this code.

Judicial employees may also serve as uncompensated mediators or arbitrators for nonprofit organizations, subject to the standards applicable to pro bono practice of law, as set forth above, and the other provisions of this code.

A judicial employee should ascertain any limitations imposed by the appointing judge or the court on which the appointing judge serves concerning the practice of law by a former judicial employee before the judge or the court and should observe such limitations after leaving such employment.

Note: See also 18 U.S.C. § 203 (representation in matters involving the United States); 18 U.S.C. § 205 (claims against the United States); 28 U.S.C. § 955 (restriction on clerks of court practicing law).
E. Compensation and Reimbursement. A judicial employee may receive compensation and reimbursement of expenses for outside activities provided that receipt of such compensation and reimbursement is not prohibited or restricted by this code, the Ethics Reform Act, and other applicable law, and provided that the source or amount of such payments does not influence or give the appearance of influencing the judicial employee in the performance of official duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety. Expense reimbursement should be limited to the actual cost of travel, food, and lodging reasonably incurred by a judicial employee and, where appropriate to the occasion, by the judicial employee's spouse or relative. Any payment in excess of such an amount is compensation.

A judicial employee should make and file reports of compensation and reimbursement for outside activities to the extent prescribed by the Ethics Reform Act, other applicable law, or the Judicial Conference of the United States.

Notwithstanding the above, a judicial employee should not receive any salary, or any supplementation of salary, as compensation for official government services from any source other than the United States, provided, however, that court reporters are not prohibited from receiving compensation for reporting services to the extent permitted by statute and by the court.

Note: See 5 U.S.C. App. §§ 101 to 111 (Ethics Reform Act financial disclosure provisions); 28 U.S.C. § 753 (court reporter compensation). See also 5 U.S.C. App. §§ 501 to 505 (outside earned income and employment).

CANON 5: A JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY
A. Partisan Political Activity. A judicial employee should refrain from partisan political activity; should not act as a leader or hold any office in a partisan political organization; should not make speeches for or publicly endorse or oppose a partisan political organization or candidate; should not solicit funds for or contribute to a partisan political organization, candidate, or event; should not become a candidate for partisan political office; and should not otherwise actively engage in partisan political activities.

B. Nonpartisan Political Activity. A member of a judge's personal staff, clerk of court, chief probation officer, chief pretrial services officer, circuit executive, and district court executive should refrain from nonpartisan political activity such as campaigning for or publicly endorsing or opposing a nonpartisan political candidate; soliciting funds for or contributing to a nonpartisan political candidate or event; and becoming a candidate for nonpartisan political office. Other judicial employees may engage in nonpartisan political activity only if such activity does not tend to reflect adversely on the dignity or impartiality of the court or office and does not interfere with the proper performance of official duties. A judicial employee may not engage in such activity while on duty or in the judicial employee's workplace and may not utilize any federal resources in connection with any such activity.

Note: See also 18 U.S.C. chapter 29 (elections and political activities).


From Sangha's Link

Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees

If Anyone has real evidence, you know where to report it. If you are just blowing smoke,...... Check Mate.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Intense seems to hope to baffle us with Bull Shit. A nice effort but off topic and not on point. Note the post is prefaced by "Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees" and the date when her quoted document was promulgated.

I believe this link provides a current and on point answer to the issue:

Document Viewer

If I'm wrong I wil be happy to publicly admit so and offer a mea culpa to all including Intense and QW.

Now I'm off to complete my Honey Dues so later I can watch Aaron Rogers (Go CAL Alum) beat the other guys.
I will look see later to see how the debate is moving along.

 

[sangha]

Intense seems to hope to baffle us with Bull Shit. A nice effort but off topic and not on point. Note the post is prefaced by "Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees" and the date when her quoted document was promulgated.

I believe this link provides a current and on point answer to the issue:

Document Viewer

If I'm wrong I wil be happy to publicly admit so and offer a mea culpa to all including Intense and QW.

Now I'm off to complete my Honey Dues so later I can watch Aaron Rogers (Go CAL Alum) beat the other guys.
I will look see later to see how the debate is moving along.

Actually, it was my link, and you're right. You're link is more up to date.

Unfortunately, after blowing their wad insisting that SCOTUS wasn't subject to ANY Code of Conduct, the wingnuts are too ashamed to continue. They're too busy trying to deny that they ever said that

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Only a dumb shit like you would think that SCOTUS justices are not subject to a code of conduct

Document Viewer

Actually, dumb shits are the people that make unwarranted assumptions.

And once again, QW lies about what he's said

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...-scalia-and-justice-thomas-5.html#post3289463

There is no judicial code of ethics that applies to the Supreme Court of the United States. You can quote all the state codes you like, and even the federal code which is here.

Excuse me? I did not lie about anything, I clearly said that even the federal judicial code of conduct does not apply to the Supreme Court. The only group that can censure a member of the Supreme Court is Congress, and all they can do is impeach one of them if they break the law. The dumbshits are, again, the people who make unwarranted assumptions. Then there is you, who makes dumbshits look smart.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

State Bar of Georgia - Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct

One more example. Notice, no discussion in re Jurisdiction.

I just know Cecelia has already pointed out that this is irrelevant, but let me show you just how irrelevant.

There is no judicial code of ethics that applies to the Supreme Court of the United States. You can quote all the state codes you like, and even the federal code which is here.

Codes of Conduct

None of them actually apply though.

This post by Quantum Windbag is emblam'atic of too many on this message board. Posts which boldly lie when the facts belie their opinion.
This type of dishonesty has two very real consequences: nothing QW posts can ever be taken on face value (s/he has lost trust) and the argument s/he hopes to offer adds credence to whatever they hope to discredit (for if implies no real evidence exists to disprove what offends their opinion).

Where did I lie? You are the one that ran around spouting off about various state codes that cannot possibly apply to the argument you are making, and then get all upset when you are called on it. I pointed out that if you wanted to make some type of point you would be better off trying to apply the federal code of conduct. The part you do not understand is that that codes of conduct are enforced by a higher body that has the power to censure or remove the judge that is breaking it. Federal judges are subject to the both Congress and their fellow judges, and even the Supreme Court when they abuse their position.

Supreme Court justices, on the other hand, are not subject to any judicial codes of conduct, and you running around blowing smoke does not change that. Like Cecilie pointed out, you can cite the codes from Bumfuck, Egypt if you want, and they are just as relevant to this discussion as the ones you are citing.

I will explain something to you that you do not seem to comprehend. Just because someone disagrees with you that does not make them a liar. In order for you to prove that I am lying you first have to prove that I am wrong. In order to do that you have to find a code of conduct that actually applies to the Justices of the Supreme Court. After that we can argue about whether I am lying or just wrong, until then you are just an idiot.

So, feel free to prove me wrong, and then you can try to approve I am a liar.

 

[kiwiman127]

Intense seems to hope to baffle us with Bull Shit. A nice effort but off topic and not on point. Note the post is prefaced by "Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees" and the date when her quoted document was promulgated.

I believe this link provides a current and on point answer to the issue:

Document Viewer

If I'm wrong I wil be happy to publicly admit so and offer a mea culpa to all including Intense and QW.

Now I'm off to complete my Honey Dues so later I can watch Aaron Rogers (Go CAL Alum) beat the other guys.
I will look see later to see how the debate is moving along.

Actually, it was my link, and you're right. You're link is more up to date.

Unfortunately, after blowing their wad insisting that SCOTUS wasn't subject to ANY Code of Conduct, the wingnuts are too ashamed to continue. They're too busy trying to deny that they ever said that

Man, the deniers of a Code of Conduct for Federal Judges (including Justices) must think all people are as gullible as your typical dittohead.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I just know Cecelia has already pointed out that this is irrelevant, but let me show you just how irrelevant.

There is no judicial code of ethics that applies to the Supreme Court of the United States. You can quote all the state codes you like, and even the federal code which is here.

Codes of Conduct

None of them actually apply though.

This post by Quantum Windbag is emblam'atic of too many on this message board. Posts which boldly lie when the facts belie their opinion.
This type of dishonesty has two very real consequences: nothing QW posts can ever be taken on face value (s/he has lost trust) and the argument s/he hopes to offer adds credence to whatever they hope to discredit (for if implies no real evidence exists to disprove what offends their opinion).

QW, like all the other wingnuts, does not have the honesty or the courage to defend his own words. For all his blather about principles, QW never fails to beat a hasty retreat from his own words when challenged. He can't even admit to what he said himself

How much shame must QW feel that he feels he has to deny what he said in black and white? He says that there is no code of conduct for SCOTUS, and when challenged, he whines that people are "assuming" he said it

]

There is no judicial code of ethics that applies to the Supreme Court of the United States

QW, why don't you tell us again about how you never said this?

Not only did I say it, I am still saying it. Prove me wrong.

 

[sangha]

Intense seems to hope to baffle us with Bull Shit. A nice effort but off topic and not on point. Note the post is prefaced by "Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees" and the date when her quoted document was promulgated.

I believe this link provides a current and on point answer to the issue:

Document Viewer

If I'm wrong I wil be happy to publicly admit so and offer a mea culpa to all including Intense and QW.

Now I'm off to complete my Honey Dues so later I can watch Aaron Rogers (Go CAL Alum) beat the other guys.
I will look see later to see how the debate is moving along.

Actually, it was my link, and you're right. You're link is more up to date.

Unfortunately, after blowing their wad insisting that SCOTUS wasn't subject to ANY Code of Conduct, the wingnuts are too ashamed to continue. They're too busy trying to deny that they ever said that

Man, the deniers of a Code of Conduct for Federal Judges (including Justices) must think all people are as gullible as your typical dittohead.

Wingnuts do think that everyone is as delusional as they are. Think about it

They're delusional enough to beleive the things that they beleive, right? So why wouldn't they be delusional enough to think that everyone agrees with them? It's all a part of their "we don't need no steenkin facts" beliefs.

Now QW is trying to insist that we have wrongly "assumed" that the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges (including Justices) applies to SC Justices

 

[sangha]

I just know Cecelia has already pointed out that this is irrelevant, but let me show you just how irrelevant.

There is no judicial code of ethics that applies to the Supreme Court of the United States. You can quote all the state codes you like, and even the federal code which is here.

Codes of Conduct

None of them actually apply though.

This post by Quantum Windbag is emblam'atic of too many on this message board. Posts which boldly lie when the facts belie their opinion.
This type of dishonesty has two very real consequences: nothing QW posts can ever be taken on face value (s/he has lost trust) and the argument s/he hopes to offer adds credence to whatever they hope to discredit (for if implies no real evidence exists to disprove what offends their opinion).

Where did I lie? You are the one that ran around spouting off about various state codes that cannot possibly apply to the argument you are making, and then get all upset when you are called on it. I pointed out that if you wanted to make some type of point you would be better off trying to apply the federal code of conduct. The part you do not understand is that that codes of conduct are enforced by a higher body that has the power to censure or remove the judge that is breaking it. Federal judges are subject to the both Congress and their fellow judges, and even the Supreme Court when they abuse their position.

Supreme Court justices, on the other hand, are not subject to any judicial codes of conduct, and you running around blowing smoke does not change that. Like Cecilie pointed out, you can cite the codes from Bumfuck, Egypt if you want, and they are just as relevant to this discussion as the ones you are citing.

I will explain something to you that you do not seem to comprehend. Just because someone disagrees with you that does not make them a liar. In order for you to prove that I am lying you first have to prove that I am wrong. In order to do that you have to find a code of conduct that actually applies to the Justices of the Supreme Court. After that we can argue about whether I am lying or just wrong, until then you are just an idiot.

So, feel free to prove me wrong, and then you can try to approve I am a liar.

Well, it's not my fault that your thinking is so bizarre that it's misunderstood. How could anyone have guessed that your wacky claim of "assumption" referred to the need for a higher authority combined with the completely nutso idea that Congress is not the higher authority with the power to remove a SC justice. If you're going to accuse others of something (like making an assumption) without spelling it out (or backing it up), then don't be surprised when you're treated like the ass that you are

The SC *IS* subject to a Code of Conduct, and Congress has the power to enforce it.

 

[Sallow]

Really?

How do you explain the fact that he often joins in unanimous decisions that go against business if he hever listens to facts or applies the law?

That generally speaks to Justice Thomas' belief in the limit of the Federal government's power.

Does that mean that the recent expansion of Title VII suits to allow third parties to file discrimination suits is a victory for small government and business interests?

Opinion analysis: Family and friends can bring third party retaliation suits under Title VII (UPDATED 5:23 pm) : SCOTUSblog

I think what we actually have here is a person who can't see past his own partisan idiocy and admit that things do not work the way world view inclines you to think.

Nope, what we have a judge driven by ideology and very much like Scalia and Alito. They all have some very odd and imperial views what the Constitution says..and they should not be sitting on the bench. Roberts, I'd keep around..I don't agree with him..but at least he comes to the table with some depth. Unlike the other rubes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This post by Quantum Windbag is emblam'atic of too many on this message board. Posts which boldly lie when the facts belie their opinion.
This type of dishonesty has two very real consequences: nothing QW posts can ever be taken on face value (s/he has lost trust) and the argument s/he hopes to offer adds credence to whatever they hope to discredit (for if implies no real evidence exists to disprove what offends their opinion).

Where did I lie? You are the one that ran around spouting off about various state codes that cannot possibly apply to the argument you are making, and then get all upset when you are called on it. I pointed out that if you wanted to make some type of point you would be better off trying to apply the federal code of conduct. The part you do not understand is that that codes of conduct are enforced by a higher body that has the power to censure or remove the judge that is breaking it. Federal judges are subject to the both Congress and their fellow judges, and even the Supreme Court when they abuse their position.

Supreme Court justices, on the other hand, are not subject to any judicial codes of conduct, and you running around blowing smoke does not change that. Like Cecilie pointed out, you can cite the codes from Bumfuck, Egypt if you want, and they are just as relevant to this discussion as the ones you are citing.

I will explain something to you that you do not seem to comprehend. Just because someone disagrees with you that does not make them a liar. In order for you to prove that I am lying you first have to prove that I am wrong. In order to do that you have to find a code of conduct that actually applies to the Justices of the Supreme Court. After that we can argue about whether I am lying or just wrong, until then you are just an idiot.

So, feel free to prove me wrong, and then you can try to approve I am a liar.

Well, it's not my fault that your thinking is so bizarre that it's misunderstood. How could anyone have guessed that your wacky claim of "assumption" referred to the need for a higher authority combined with the completely nutso idea that Congress is not the higher authority with the power to remove a SC justice. If you're going to accuse others of something (like making an assumption) without spelling it out (or backing it up), then don't be surprised when you're treated like the ass that you are

The SC *IS* subject to a Code of Conduct, and Congress has the power to enforce it.

No they do not.

If you ever bother to read the Constitution you will see that the government is split into three separate and equal branches. The Executive Branch cannot tell Congress what rules it has to follow, nor can Congress tell the Executive Branch who to appoint to run the various agencies. No branch can make rules for the other branches, if they could we would not have a balance of powers.

Keep trying, I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That generally speaks to Justice Thomas' belief in the limit of the Federal government's power.

Does that mean that the recent expansion of Title VII suits to allow third parties to file discrimination suits is a victory for small government and business interests?

Opinion analysis: Family and friends can bring third party retaliation suits under Title VII (UPDATED 5:23 pm) : SCOTUSblog

I think what we actually have here is a person who can't see past his own partisan idiocy and admit that things do not work the way world view inclines you to think.

Nope, what we have a judge driven by ideology and very much like Scalia and Alito. They all have some very odd and imperial view what the Constitution says..and they should not be sitting on the bench. Roberts, I'd keep around..I don't agree with him..but at least he comes to the table with some depth. Unlike the other rubes.

In other words, even when they agree with you they are wrong.

Amazing.

 

[Sallow]

Does that mean that the recent expansion of Title VII suits to allow third parties to file discrimination suits is a victory for small government and business interests?

Opinion analysis: Family and friends can bring third party retaliation suits under Title VII (UPDATED 5:23 pm) : SCOTUSblog

I think what we actually have here is a person who can't see past his own partisan idiocy and admit that things do not work the way world view inclines you to think.

Nope, what we have a judge driven by ideology and very much like Scalia and Alito. They all have some very odd and imperial view what the Constitution says..and they should not be sitting on the bench. Roberts, I'd keep around..I don't agree with him..but at least he comes to the table with some depth. Unlike the other rubes.

In other words, even when they agree with you they are wrong.

Amazing.

No. In plain, clear text words..they should not be on the bench.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because you disagree with them. When you start calling for the resignation of judges you agree with because they make decisions primarily on the basis of political ideology you will gain some credibility, but you will still be wrong.

 

[kiwiman127]

Well I did find this;
"The [US Supreme Court] Justices are not bound by the Code of Conduct [for United States Judges], but they look to it for guidance."

Spokesperson for the US Supreme Court Public Information Office in an email to ProCon.org, June 15, 2008

US Congressional Ethics Rules on Insider Trading - Insider Trading by Congress - ProCon.org

So based on this find, I was wrong, The supremes are not bound by the code but use it for guidance. QW is right.

 

[sangha]

Where did I lie? You are the one that ran around spouting off about various state codes that cannot possibly apply to the argument you are making, and then get all upset when you are called on it. I pointed out that if you wanted to make some type of point you would be better off trying to apply the federal code of conduct. The part you do not understand is that that codes of conduct are enforced by a higher body that has the power to censure or remove the judge that is breaking it. Federal judges are subject to the both Congress and their fellow judges, and even the Supreme Court when they abuse their position.

Supreme Court justices, on the other hand, are not subject to any judicial codes of conduct, and you running around blowing smoke does not change that. Like Cecilie pointed out, you can cite the codes from Bumfuck, Egypt if you want, and they are just as relevant to this discussion as the ones you are citing.

I will explain something to you that you do not seem to comprehend. Just because someone disagrees with you that does not make them a liar. In order for you to prove that I am lying you first have to prove that I am wrong. In order to do that you have to find a code of conduct that actually applies to the Justices of the Supreme Court. After that we can argue about whether I am lying or just wrong, until then you are just an idiot.

So, feel free to prove me wrong, and then you can try to approve I am a liar.

Well, it's not my fault that your thinking is so bizarre that it's misunderstood. How could anyone have guessed that your wacky claim of "assumption" referred to the need for a higher authority combined with the completely nutso idea that Congress is not the higher authority with the power to remove a SC justice. If you're going to accuse others of something (like making an assumption) without spelling it out (or backing it up), then don't be surprised when you're treated like the ass that you are

The SC *IS* subject to a Code of Conduct, and Congress has the power to enforce it.

No they do not.

If you ever bother to read the Constitution you will see that the government is split into three separate and equal branches. The Executive Branch cannot tell Congress what rules it has to follow, nor can Congress tell the Executive Branch who to appoint to run the various agencies. No branch can make rules for the other branches, if they could we would not have a balance of powers.

Keep trying, I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong.

The Constitution, if you ever bother yourself to read it, gives Congress the power to impeach SC justices, a power it has actually exercised.

Tell me again how there's no "higher authority" that can subject a SC justice to a code of conduct.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let's examine QW's 'reasoning'.

"If you ever bother to read the Constitution you will see that the government is split into three separate and equal branches. The Executive Branch cannot tell Congress what rules it has to follow, nor can Congress tell the Executive Branch who to appoint to run the various agencies. No branch can make rules for the other branches, if they could we would not have a balance of powers."

First and foremost the Code of Conduct was formulated by the Judicial Counsel:

Codes of Conduct

The first paragraph reads:

"Federal judges abide by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, a set of ethical principles and guidelines adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Code of Conduct provides guidance for judges on issues of judicial integrity and independence, judicial diligence and impartiality, permissible extra-judicial activities, and the avoidance of impropriety or even its appearance."

Off topic but relevent is that the US Constitution gives the authority to impeach the POTUS to the House of Representatives and the authority to judge the indictment for impeachment to the Senate.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Samuel Chase was impeached by the House of Representatives as a member of the USSC, but not convicted by the Senate.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well I did find this;
"The [US Supreme Court] Justices are not bound by the Code of Conduct [for United States Judges], but they look to it for guidance."

Spokesperson for the US Supreme Court Public Information Office in an email to ProCon.org, June 15, 2008

US Congressional Ethics Rules on Insider Trading - Insider Trading by Congress - ProCon.org

So based on this find, I was wrong, The supremes are not bound by the code but use it for guidance. QW is right.

No he is not. See Samuel Chase for an example of the only USSC Justice impeached by the House of Representaives; he was not convicted by the Senate.