On divided government

[Wry Catcher]

We live in a republic, which we the people democratically elect to do the people's business. We also have a Constitution, one which provides checks and balances on the POTUS and The Congress. A process umpired by a Judiciary which is supposed to be impartial:

Sadly, it too has become more and more divided and more and more political.

It is past time for the Supreme Court to promulgate a Code of Ethics, as have all other judges and justices who preside in the lesser courts of our nation. Too often justices of the Supreme Court have Conflicts of Interests, which though denied, impact their judgment and decisions.

 

[whitehall]

The "code of ethics" for the Supreme Court is the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Ricky LIbtardo]

Why would you want to keep all liberals from the Supreme Court by instituting a Code of Ethics?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The "code of ethics" for the Supreme Court is the U.S. Constitution.

Idiot-gram ^^^

 

[TNHarley]

They just need to abide by the Constitution. Thats it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I was not trolling for fools, sadly I caught three of them.

 

[Correll]

The liberals would use it to attack conservatives while giving all liberal judges a pass.

 

[Correll]

I was not trolling for fools, sadly I caught three of them.

Do you think that all the lib appointed Justices who voted for Gore were dutifully following the Sacred Law, while all the republican appointees were foul partisans?

 

[Rob37]

If there were a Supreme Court code of ethics then Kagan and Sotomayer would have to leave. Those 2 idiots are political hacks trying to change policy by legislating from the bench.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I was not trolling for fools, sadly I caught three of them.

You were not expecting the truth from truth tellers to be presented. Clearly you were caught off guard by all three of them! That's strike three and you're out!

 

[blackhawk]

So if I'm reading this right you want to find a way to eliminate activist judges meaning judges who go out of their way to hand out the ruling they want not necessarily the one that is correct or legal. I am all for that I don't care if it's a conservative or liberal judges.

 

[TNHarley]

They just need to abide by the Constitution. Thats it.

What I said even goes along with your OP. You are just a damn idiot. If they just went by the COTUS nothing else would matter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ethical code of SCOTUS in the Constitution, of which it is the protector.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So if I'm reading this right you want to find a way to eliminate activist judges meaning judges who go out of their way to hand out the ruling they want not necessarily the one that is correct or legal. I am all for that I don't care if it's a conservative or liberal judges.

The question is straight forward, it has nothing to do with activist judges and everything to do with Conflicts of Interests.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf

Above is a link to the Code of Judicial Ethics promulgated in California.

• Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
• Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.
• Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently and diligently.
• Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
• Canon 5. A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.
• Canon 6. Compliance with the Code of Judicial Ethics.

 

[blackhawk]

So if I'm reading this right you want to find a way to eliminate activist judges meaning judges who go out of their way to hand out the ruling they want not necessarily the one that is correct or legal. I am all for that I don't care if it's a conservative or liberal judges.

The question is straight forward, it has nothing to do with activist judges and everything to do with Conflicts of Interests.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf

Above is a link to the Code of Judicial Ethics promulgated in California.

• Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
• Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.
• Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently and diligently.
• Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
• Canon 5. A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.
• Canon 6. Compliance with the Code of Judicial Ethics.

A judge is not supposed to be an activist if they are and are letting that factor into their decisions that is a conflict of interest.

 

[Avatar4321]

Who determines these rules of ethics?

 

[Avatar4321]

What are the consequences for violating them?

 

[Wry Catcher]

So if I'm reading this right you want to find a way to eliminate activist judges meaning judges who go out of their way to hand out the ruling they want not necessarily the one that is correct or legal. I am all for that I don't care if it's a conservative or liberal judges.

The question is straight forward, it has nothing to do with activist judges and everything to do with Conflicts of Interests.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf

Above is a link to the Code of Judicial Ethics promulgated in California.

• Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
• Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.
• Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently and diligently.
• Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
• Canon 5. A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.
• Canon 6. Compliance with the Code of Judicial Ethics.

A judge is not supposed to be an activist if they are and are letting that factor into their decisions that is a conflict of interest.

That is a double edged sword. Suggesting as you do would eliminate discretion based on facts in evidence that the issue before the court conflicts with public safety or national security.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Who determines these rules of ethics?

From the link provided:

Formal standards of judicial conduct have existed for more than 65 years. The original 4 Canons of Judicial Ethics promulgated by the American Bar Association were modified and adopted in 1949 for application in California by the Conference of California Judges (now the California Judges Association).

In 1969, the American Bar Association determined that then current needs and problems warranted revision of the canons. In the revision process, a special American Bar Association committee, headed by former California Chief Justice Roger Traynor, sought and considered the views of the bench and bar and other interested persons. The American Bar Association Code of Judicial Conduct was adopted by the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association August 16, 1972.

Effective January 5, 1975, the California Judges Association adopted a new California Code of Judicial Conduct adapted from the American Bar Association 1972 Model Code. The California code was recast in gender-neutral form in 1986.

To see more:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf

 

[Wry Catcher]

What are the consequences for violating them?

Impeachment, disbarment, or censor would be my guess.