2 ms·
His signature is to be taken as indication that he will abide by it lest the Court be forced to, unprecedentedly, invent punishments - or worse, have them presc
by whatshisface 3y ago
His signature is to be taken as indication that he will abide by it lest the Court be forced to, unprecedentedly, invent punishments - or worse, have them prescribed by the Congress. It would also make the situation even worse for the two members who got this written if they were seen to not sign the code that was signed by all of the other justices.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- yowzadave 3y agoI feel like his signature is taken to be an indication that he believes he has already always followed this code -- that is, he endorses the statement in the preamble that it "largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct." This is what really gets to me--it is explicitly framed as a PR exercise: "The absence of a code...has led to the misunderstanding that the Justices regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules." Missing is any acknowledgment that the Code may not have been followed in the past.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- whatshisface 3y ago>"the Justices regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules" That's a confession, not a diversion. How could they have abided by the code while regarding themselves as "unrestricted by any ethics rules?"
- pseudalopex 3y agoThey didn't say they regarded themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. They said people thought wrongly they regarded themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.