4 ms·
I 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 pr
by yowzadave 3y ago
I 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.