Let’s take a look at some of the tweaks the Supreme Court made to the lower courts’ code of conduct. Swapping out “judge” for “justice” makes perfect sense, but a few of these edits ought to raise eyebrows.
Here’s the “no ratting out your colleagues” switch:
Note here the addition of “knowingly.”
Deleted: “that a judge’s conduct contravened this Code, that a judicial employee’s conduct contravened this Code, that a judicial employee’s conduct contravened the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, or that a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct.”
"Shall" is swapped for "should."
"Shall" swapped for “should,” and “knowingly” sprinkled in a few more times.
And one more excerpt.
Setting aside the main problem of no process/no umpires, even the Code itself is watered down for Their Olympian Highnesses.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
And this doesn’t even count the oily fossil fuel fingers in the long and tawdry scheme to pack the Court with captured justices who will do billionaires’ and polluters’ bidding.
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” — Walter Scott, relevant for Clarence Thomas.
Oh, what a saga it is. 🧵
It begins with Harlan-Crow-to-Clarence-Thomas freebie-yacht-and-jet-travel Round One. As Judge Wolf testified in my subcommittee, this was buried in the Judicial Conference a decade ago, with no public findings or report.
Thomas did not get the message, and kept taking the freebies, which led to Crow-to-Thomas yacht-and-jet-freebies-PLUS*, Round Two, exposed thanks to Pulitzer-Prize-winning reporting by ProPublica.
It begins with Harlan-Crow-to-Clarence-Thomas freebie-yacht-and-jet-travel Round One. As Judge Wolf testified in my subcommittee, this was buried in the Judicial Conference a decade ago, with no public findings or report.
Thomas did not get the message, and kept taking the freebies, which led to Crow-to-Thomas yacht-and-jet-freebies-PLUS*, Round Two, exposed thanks to Pulitzer-Prize-winning reporting by ProPublica.
[*PLUS, if you recall, included free rent from Crow to his mother, free tuition from Crow to his grandnephew, payments directed by Crow pal Leonard Leo to his spouse (“another $25K … No mention of Ginni“), and who knows what else.]
A little history regarding House Republicans purporting to hold AG Garland in contempt for complying with a presidential assertion of executive privilege.
Assertion of this privilege is governed by a memo dating back to President Reagan, referred to (unsurprisingly) as the Reagan Memo.
The President gets to assert executive privilege. The President did.
If the House has a problem with that, they can take him to court and get a ruling.