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
The question is enforcement: where do you file a complaint; who reviews it; how does fact finding occur; who compares what happened to what’s allowed?
That’s where the rubber hits the road. 🧵
For instance, justices are supposed to recuse from cases where they have a personal interest, but Thomas has never been asked about his wife’s 1/6 role or what he knew.
For instance, justices are supposed to report gifts and income, but Thomas has never been asked about the RV loan on which he reportedly paid only interest not principal.
“As Mr. Trump criticized the court, Mr. Leo with the Federalist Society is said to have told associates he was disappointed that the former president’s rhetoric made his judicial appointment record look ‘transactional,’ aimed at advancing Mr. Trump’s personal interests….”
Let’s consider “transactional”: Kochs hated Trump, Trump hated Kochs; then came Trump’s public “Federalist Society list” for the Supreme Court; then came peace between House of Koch and House of Trump. Is that a transaction? nytimes.com/2023/11/01/us/…
As to the first: the Kochs pledged to spend millions against Trump; Trump mocked them and called out Republican primary opponents who traveled to fancy Koch political event to kiss their ring.
The number one goal of the right-wing fossil-fuel billionaires who captured the Court is to break the public’s power to regulate things like pollution.
Here’s the right-wing billionaire “care-and-feeding-of-FedSoc-justices” count so far:
1. Harlan Crow to Clarence Thomas: “Undisclosed yacht and jet travel 1.0” in 2011 followed by “undisclosed yacht and jet travel 2.0” earlier this year; multiple vacations and gifts to Thomas family.
2. Paul Singer to Sam Alito: Undisclosed jet travel and Alaskan fishing vacation. Accompanied by Leonard Leo. Singer has had company cases before the Court and contributes to these groups that try to influence the Court: Manhattan Institute and Federalist Society.
The U.S. is far behind the E.U. on reducing plastics contamination because U.S. fossil fuel interests hold such sway with the Republican Party, so fossil fuel (including plastics) interests can come arrogantly to U.S. politics like they own the place — because they do. It’s sad.
More undisclosed private jet travel, more fingerprints of the billionaire-funded Court fixer Leonard Leo, more engagement with billionaire-funded organizations scheming to influence the Court.
Always the same little circle; always the Chosen Ones on the Court.
The case mentioned, Bonta, was an insidious one. The state-of-the-art tool of modern secret political influence is twinned 501c3 and 501c4 organizations. This case made donations secret to the 501c3 twin, even from state regulators. It was 6-3 with all the Chosen Ones signing up.