3 ms·

This is an interesting attempt to ward off the growing skepticism of judicial supremacy in some groups. There is a fascinating struggle between judicial suprema

This is an interesting attempt to ward off the growing skepticism of judicial supremacy in some groups. There is a fascinating struggle between judicial supremacy and constitutional supremacy in America with a long history. Obviously there are pros and cons to each view, and who is for or against one or the other often changes depending on the social issue at hand. I don't think a code of ethics will be very effective. A more substantial move would be to introduce term-limits.

virtue3 3y ago
Agreed. The most "long term" effect a US president has is nominating supreme court justices. I also fail to see how a "code of conduct" might change the way individual justices interpret the current constitution. Worse yet, who is writing the code of ethics? Is it going to be a constitution v2? Constitution-lite?
mikepurvis 3y ago
As a foreigner who isn't in the know, what does constitutional supremacy look like in practical terms? Isn't it still the judges who have the last word on how the constitution is to be interpreted and applied?
- beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago
  Judicial supremacy is the idea that the judiciary is the sole arbiter of constitutional meaning. Lincoln, reacting to a ruling that upheld that black slaves “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" said: > The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Which is actually more nuanced than just "you can ignore the supreme court whenever." Instead, it's articulating the idea that the SC has to be balanced with congress and elected officials. The idea that the SC is the sole arbiter of constitutional meaning grates against the democratically elected power of congress and the executive. An SC that constantly rejects congress risks overstepping and delegitimizing it's very power and role. For instance, congress might simply ignore a ruling, or strip its jurisdiction over certain matters, or it might change the size of the court. This of course could equally backfire on congress and the president. It's, as always, a balancing act of checks and balances rather than just the SC always getting what they want. Constitutional supremacy then is more like the argument that sometimes the judiciary has to be saved from itself. The debate has a fascinating history in American politics.
addicted 3y ago
I don’t think this has any impact on the broader question of judicial vs constitutional supremacy. I think this simply tries to address the fact that some of the justices have been ridiculously corrupt. I mean, think about it, irrespective of your political leanings, you’re a judge whose basically forgone the much greater sums of money they could have made going into private service, in return for the comfort of a lifetime appointment, respect from the vast majority of people, and an effort to serve the country. And there’s this 1 colleague of yours whose wife is raking in money from people whose cases you’re hearing, and is going on paid vacations with billionaires, and his mom is getting her house essentially gifted by another billionaire, etc. You’d be pissed st this guy even if he was on “your side”. Just on a personal level it must be infuriating for the other 8 justices.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>Just on a personal level it must be infuriating for the other 8 justices this assumes that the practice is not common, the fact remains that most of these "violations" have been known for years and years, but it politically advantageous to go after this justice at this time. It is all political, not some altruistic sense of ethics, Biden has been after Thomas since his confirmation
sonicanatidae 3y ago
This is a band-aid on a broken leg. There is no enforcement and no penalty for walking right past ethics into outright bribery for SCOTUS and some sheet of paper with no teeth isn't changing that. They may as well fine them $50 every time they accept a bribe. Term limits would go much, much further and you'll notice the absence.

virtue3 3y ago

Agreed. The most "long term" effect a US president has is nominating supreme court justices. I also fail to see how a "code of conduct" might change the way individual justices interpret the current constitution. Worse yet, who is writing the code of ethics? Is it going to be a constitution v2? Constitution-lite?

mikepurvis 3y ago

As a foreigner who isn't in the know, what does constitutional supremacy look like in practical terms? Isn't it still the judges who have the last word on how the constitution is to be interpreted and applied?

beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago
Judicial supremacy is the idea that the judiciary is the sole arbiter of constitutional meaning. Lincoln, reacting to a ruling that upheld that black slaves “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" said: > The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Which is actually more nuanced than just "you can ignore the supreme court whenever." Instead, it's articulating the idea that the SC has to be balanced with congress and elected officials. The idea that the SC is the sole arbiter of constitutional meaning grates against the democratically elected power of congress and the executive. An SC that constantly rejects congress risks overstepping and delegitimizing it's very power and role. For instance, congress might simply ignore a ruling, or strip its jurisdiction over certain matters, or it might change the size of the court. This of course could equally backfire on congress and the president. It's, as always, a balancing act of checks and balances rather than just the SC always getting what they want. Constitutional supremacy then is more like the argument that sometimes the judiciary has to be saved from itself. The debate has a fascinating history in American politics.

addicted 3y ago

I don’t think this has any impact on the broader question of judicial vs constitutional supremacy. I think this simply tries to address the fact that some of the justices have been ridiculously corrupt. I mean, think about it, irrespective of your political leanings, you’re a judge whose basically forgone the much greater sums of money they could have made going into private service, in return for the comfort of a lifetime appointment, respect from the vast majority of people, and an effort to serve the country. And there’s this 1 colleague of yours whose wife is raking in money from people whose cases you’re hearing, and is going on paid vacations with billionaires, and his mom is getting her house essentially gifted by another billionaire, etc. You’d be pissed st this guy even if he was on “your side”. Just on a personal level it must be infuriating for the other 8 justices.

phpisthebest 3y ago
>>Just on a personal level it must be infuriating for the other 8 justices this assumes that the practice is not common, the fact remains that most of these "violations" have been known for years and years, but it politically advantageous to go after this justice at this time. It is all political, not some altruistic sense of ethics, Biden has been after Thomas since his confirmation

sonicanatidae 3y ago

This is a band-aid on a broken leg. There is no enforcement and no penalty for walking right past ethics into outright bribery for SCOTUS and some sheet of paper with no teeth isn't changing that. They may as well fine them $50 every time they accept a bribe. Term limits would go much, much further and you'll notice the absence.