SCOTUS

[bob]

Requires an amendment to the Constitution. How do you think the Supreme Court would rule on this law?

I suspect it’s to raise consciousness.

Yes: And/or election-time theater.

There's a (law review?) article out there defending the plan's constitutionality, but I don't buy it.

[raison de arizona]

Anything that puts that Roberts on notice that we the people are coming for him and his crooked court is a-ok with me. Maybe it will spur him to get off his butt and Do Something.

[bob]

I would love to think he did this for the right reason.

You may continue to think poorly of Alito.

(Full) SCOTUS granted the stay, treated the stay application as a cert. request, and then granted that cert. petition.*

The AGoMO is touting this like a big victory, but Missouri mostly won in the appellate court. SCOTUS could have just denied the stay application, and the case would be over.

In fact, three justices wanted to do just that: Gorsuch, Thomas, and ... Alito.


* First question presented:

Whether respondents have Article III standing

[Gregg]

But what does not require anything more than simple majority votes in both houses is a rule that permits the President to appoint a given Justice's successor when he reaches a given age, which would expand SCOTUS but only until a Justice retires or assumes ambient temperature.

If you can't get rid of them for open corruption that would shame a 1950s South American Junta, you can at least cancel out their vote.

[Kriselda Gray]

But what does not require anything more than simple majority votes in both houses is a rule that permits the President to appoint a given Justice's successor when he reaches a given age, which would expand SCOTUS but only until a Justice retires or assumes ambient temperature.

If you can't get rid of them for open corruption that would shame a 1950s South American Junta, you can at least cancel out their vote.

That's actually not a bad idea, and can be abused equally by both sides

[NewMexGirl]

What’s a mere $250,000 gift between friends, right

Gift article.

Justice Thomas’s R.V. Loan Was Forgiven, Senate Inquiry Finds
The justice failed to repay much, perhaps all, of the $267,230 loan. His benefactor wiped the slate clean, with ethical and potential tax consequences.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/us/p ... =url-share

[raison de arizona]

What a turkey. Even I know that forgiven loans count as income. Hope the IRS comes after him.

[NewMexGirl]

What a turkey. Even I know that forgiven loans count as income. Hope the IRS comes after him.

Considering that they are going after Hunter Biden for a lesser transgression, if the DoJ IRS Division fails to go after Thomas the Republicans are going to have a hard time screaming “selective prosecution” all the damn time.

[raison de arizona]

US Supreme Court announces formal ethics code for justices

WASHINGTON, Nov 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday adopted its first formal code of conduct governing the ethical behavior of its nine justices, bowing to months of outside pressure over revelations of undisclosed luxury trips and hobnobbing with wealthy benefactors.

The court released its code "to set out succinctly and gather in one place the ethics rules and principles that guide the conduct of the members of the court," according to a brief introductory statement.

Unlike other members of the federal judiciary, the Supreme Court's nine life-tenured justices had long acted with no binding ethics code.

That absence, the statement said, "has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the justices of this court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct."

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-suprem ... 023-11-13/

The Code of Conduct: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code ... 3_2023.pdf

[NewMexGirl]

Well Billy be damned. I didn’t think those arrogant a-holes would ever do it. Of course, I haven’t read the standards. Is it more than just changing their underwear on a weekly basis?

[bob]

Well Billy be damned. I didn’t think those arrogant a-holes would ever do it. Of course, I haven’t read the standards. Is it more than just changing their underwear on a weekly basis?

The good news is they largely mirror the ethical standards for other federal judges.

The less good news is they are basically toothless. Conspicuously absent is anything about enforcement. Or even how to lodge compliants.

And there's also this:

The rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification.

The commentary following the code of conduct "explains" that the recusal of even one justice could determine the outcome in a case, which leans heavily for non-recusal.

Also noticeably absent is the suggestion that retired justices could fill in for a recused justice. Or that SCOTUS could appoint a circuit judge to sit as a justice in case of recusal (which is what basically every other court does).

Bottom line, mostly dogs and ponies, for show.

[AndyinPA]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/13/politics ... index.html

CNN — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the appeal of an Illinois inmate whose lawyers argued his rights were violated when he was kept in solitary confinement for some three years and denied virtually all access to exercise. The inmate, Michael Johnson, argued that the deprivation of yard time – in the absence of a true security justification – violated the Constitution’s bar on cruel and inhumane punishment.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by her liberal colleagues Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented from the court’s decision not to take up Johnson’s appeal, highlighting the dismal conditions.

“For three years,” Jackson wrote, “Johnson had no opportunity at all to stretch his limbs or breathe fresh air.” She noted that without the ability to exercise, Johnson’s “mental state deteriorated rapidly.” “He suffered from hallucinations, excoriated his own flesh, urinated and defecated on himself, and smeared feces all over his body and cell,” Jackson wrote in the eight-page dissent.

Johnson began serving his sentence in February 2007. He has been classified as seriously mentally ill and diagnosed with depression, bipolar disorder, among other disorders. Between 2008 and 2016, he had multiple conduct violations including assaulting correctional officers or other inmates, and his accrued segregation time meant that he spent almost three and a half years in solitary confinement.

[chancery]

Well Billy be damned. I didn’t think those arrogant a-holes would ever do it. Of course, I haven’t read the standards. Is it more than just changing their underwear on a weekly basis?

The good news is they largely mirror the ethical standards for other federal judges.

The less good news is they are basically toothless. Conspicuously absent is anything about enforcement. Or even how to lodge compliants.

And there's also this:

The rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification.

The commentary following the code of conduct "explains" that the recusal of even one justice could determine the outcome in a case, which leans heavily for non-recusal.

Also noticeably absent is the suggestion that retired justices could fill in for a recused justice. Or that SCOTUS could appoint a circuit judge to sit as a justice in case of recusal (which is what basically every other court does).

Bottom line, mostly dogs and ponies, for show.

Yeah, there was United States v. Alcoa, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945), in which several justices recused, and the Court assigned the appeal to a Second Circuit panel including Judge Learned Hand. Although there was a special act of Congress, possibly the "rule of necessity" might allow them to do it on their own kick.

[chancery]

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSPlaces/status ... 1154914488

Jack Metzler (cleaned up)
@SCOTUSPlaces
·
49s
Oddly enough, the SCOTUS Code of Conduct has no problem saying that Justices "should" comply with the law in Canon 2A, but for some reason there's this one law where they feel it's enough to just say that they have agreed to comply, not that they have to or even should.

Jack Metzler (cleaned up)
@SCOTUSPlaces
·
6m
Replying to @SCOTUSPlaces
And if you were wondering about those gifts Justice Thomas failed to report: the Code of Conduct does not even say that a Justice "should" comply with the financial disclosure reqs. It just says the Justices "have agreed to comply" and they "reaffirm that commitment."/x

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSPlaces/status ... 1990201617

Jack Metzler (cleaned up)
@SCOTUSPlaces
How strongly worded is the new Supreme Court Code of Conduct? Let's look at the language they use.
It is very heavy on aspirational language and very short on mandatory language. "Shall" and "shall not" do not appear at all. "May not" appears only twice. /1

The two things that Justices "may not" do are (1) accept compensation for an appearance or a speech; and (2) have outside earned income in excess of an annual cap established by statute and regulation. /2

"Should," on the other hand, appears quite often--53 times, 29 of which are part of "should not." Some of the things Justices "should not" do include being swayed by partisan interests or public clamor and engaging in harassing, abusive, prejudiced, or biased behavior. /3

Perhaps you're wondering, what if a Justice does something they "should not" do, or fails to do something they "should" do?
The short answer is idk, nothing maybe?
The long answer is . . . well that's also the long answer. There is nothing about enforcement. /4

Here are a few words that do not appear anywhere in the SCOTUS Code of Conduct, in any form:
Enforce
Complaint
Investigate
Sanction
Violate appears once, in Canon 4, where we learn a justice "should not" violate the limitations on extrajudicial activities. /5

[pipistrelle]

Yep

I have no shocked face

[John Thomas8]

Ethics in this SCOTUS?

Laughable. Ain't gonna happen. "The Six" don't have it in them and the other 3 can't enforce anything.

A media circus joke, obscene at its core.

[Slim Cognito]

A SCOTUS Potemkin village, if you will.

[chancery]

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSPlaces/status ... 990201617

Dr. Australovenator
@TaterTotLvr

After Castle Rock v. Gonzales we know what SCOTUS thinks of "SHALL", so whatever. It is the fact there is no enforcement mechanism! It is still just voluntary and when one sees the exclusions built in, it really looks feeble.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case about restraining orders, in this instance a protective order against an abusive, later murderous, spouse. Both the order and the statute under which it was issued bristled with the word "shall." The majority opinion, written by Scalia, blithely concluded that "shall was not "mandatory."

a true mandate of police action would require some stronger indication from the Colorado Legislature than “shall use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order” (or even “shall arrest … or … seek a warrant”).

See contra, MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 765 F.2d 1186, 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ("'Shall,' the Supreme Court has stated, 'is the language of command,' Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U.S. 490, 493; '[a]bsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary,' courts ordinarily regard such statutory language as conclusive. GTE Sylvania, 447 U.S. at 108; see, e.g., Amalgamated Transit Union v. Donovan, 767 F.2d 939, 944 (D.C. Cir. 1985).")

[NewMexGirl]

Yeah, there was United States v. Alcoa, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945), in which several justices recused, and the Court assigned the appeal to a Second Circuit panel including Judge Learned Hand. Although there was a special act of Congress, possibly the "rule of necessity" might allow them to do it on their own kick.

OT: Learned Hand “played” the Voice of God in a Broadway show. He was a great guy with a fine sense of humor.

[pipistrelle]

Ricky Davila
@TheRickyDavila
·
9h
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan refused to accept something as simple as bagels from her friends because it could look improper.

Then you have Clarence Thomas accepting tens of millions in luxury bribes from a billionaire as his wife Ginni plotted sedition. Code of ethics my ass.

[RTH10260]

SEC v. Jarkesy: The Threat to Congressional and Agency Authority
SEC v. Jarkesy is quietly one among a trio of important Supreme Court cases this term that could deal major blows to executive and congressional power.


Devon Ombres
NOV 27, 2023

The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on November 13, 2023. (Getty/Mandel Ngan)
On November 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) v. Jarkesy, a case that could have significant effects on government’s ability to effectively serve the American people should the court choose to eliminate administrative law judges (ALJs) and resurrect the nondelegation doctrine. There are nearly 2,000 ALJs working as independent officials within the executive branch who preside over administrative hearings in a variety of federal agencies and adjudicate disputes between the agencies and affected parties. In this case, an SEC ALJ found that two hedge funds established by George Jarkesy committed securities fraud against investors. The SEC fined Jarkesy and other parties $300,000; required disgorgement of $685,000 in ill-gotten gains, which the SEC Board of Commissioners upheld; and barred Jarkesy from participating in the securities industry. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed the decision in an extreme ruling, holding that not only are SEC ALJs unconstitutional, but that Congress lacks the power to give the SEC the ability to adjudicate securities fraud cases under the nondelegation doctrine.

If the Supreme Court upholds this extreme ruling on ALJs, it could pose an existential threat to federal agencies that protect Americans and make determinations on the government benefits they are owed. For example, these judges play important roles in getting Americans the Social Security benefits they are owed, safeguarding their right to join a union or bargain over wages, keeping them safe and unharmed at work, and regulating the safety and cost of U.S. energy sources. And if the court upholds this ruling on the nondelegation doctrine, it will be the first time in nearly a century—and only the third time ever—that this long-discredited legal theory has been used to strike down federal law. It would show that the court is seeking to limit Congress’ powers and put its policy preferences above those of elected officials.




https://www.americanprogress.org/articl ... authority/

[RTH10260]

Supreme Court questions opioid liability protections for Sackler family
The Biden administration is questioning a bankruptcy plan that lets the Sackler family avoid future lawsuits related to the opioid epidemic.

Dec. 4, 2023, 1:00 PM CET / Updated Dec. 4, 2023, 6:46 PM CET
By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON — Members of the Supreme Court seemed conflicted on Monday over whether to allow the bankruptcy reorganization of opioid maker Purdue Pharma, which includes a provision that protects the Sackler family from liability from future lawsuits.

During the oral argument, justices expressed skepticism that a bankruptcy court had legal authority to release the Sacklers from potential legal claims. But some justices also seemed reluctant to blow up the multibillion dollar deal that will provide immediate relief to opioid victims.

It is no ordinary bankruptcy case, touching as it does upon the nationwide harm caused by the opioid crisis and the role that Sackler-owned Purdue played in creating it. Ahead of the argument, some opponents of the deal held a rally outside the court, with protesters chanting: "Sackler money, blood money."

As part of the proposed deal, which the Supreme Court put on hold in August, the Sackler family had agreed to pay around $6 billion that could be used to settle opioid-related claims, but only in return for a complete release from any liability in future cases.

The overall settlement, including assets held by Purdue, is likely to be worth significantly more, with the reorganized company set to dedicate itself to tackling the impact of opioid abuse.



https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... rcna127663

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Moar info on Sackler case:

Under the terms of the deal approved by a lower court, Purdue Pharma—the maker, aggressive peddler, and deceptive marketer of Oxycontin— agreed to pay billions of dollars to those harmed in the opioid epidemic. In exchange, the deal shields members of the Sackler family from personal liability, though they owned and ran the company.

Just what happened at Purdue Pharma, and what the Sacklers did, was not known for a long time. Now, however, their role and the company's have been well documented, in court and movies, books, and documentaries, like Crime of the Century.

"Within the last 20 years, more than 500,000 Americans have been killed by overdoses," the documentary recounts. "This was a new drug cartel. They were drug dealers wearing suits and lab coats."

The deal at the center of the case
By 2020, Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty to three criminal charges. The company agreed that it owed $8 billion in criminal and civil fines, most of it to be paid to state and local governments handling the fallout of the opioid crisis. Most of the money was conditioned on the company reaching a deal in bankruptcy court that would reimburse victims of the opioid epidemic, including those state and local governments, as well as individuals who were harmed.

That deal that is at the center of Monday's case because it releases the Sacklers from personal liability, despite the fact that all three of the original Sackler brothers who bought Purdue and ultimately developed OxyContin were doctors. And, six Sacklers sat on the board of the company, including the chairman Richard Sackler, who closely directed the firm's aggressive and deceptive marketing strategy of OxyContin as not causing addiction.

Under the original bankruptcy deal with the company, the Sacklers kicked in $4 billion to be divided among the state and local governments, and others. But, at the same time the Sackler family members were to be released from any further liability.

When eight states and the District of Columbia balked at the amount, the Sacklers upped the ante to $6 billion, with the remaining $2 billion coming from the assets and future earnings of a new non-profit company formed after Purdue's dissolution.

After the Sacklers increased their contribution to $6 billion, the objecting states withdrew their opposition, and 95% of the state, local and tribal governments, as well as groups of individuals voted to approve the settlement.

[raison de arizona]

Clarence Thomas threatened to quit SCOTUS unless he could get rich, so Republican politicians arranged for billionaires to start inundating him with money and gifts in exchange for his continued service. He gladly accepted the trade-off.

The story: https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... ars-scotus

[Slim Cognito]

Honestly, I'm not surprised so why does it make me so damn angry?