The Supremes just adopted a fairly watered down iteration of the model version federal judicial code of conduct.
Y A W N.
In prior ages, this would have been superfluous. But in this age. . . we’ve seen. . . Thomas, Alito and even Kavanaugh (the latter never having explained who exactly paid his off his prior ~$260,000 in unsecured debts — he personally did not).
But it is Clarence Thomas whose lifestyle will be most crimped by the prohibition on perks without disclosures [at new Canon 4.D.(3)], now.
Long overdue — particularly for a guy driving a very high end mobile home, whenever he goes on vacation in the US — one financed by a billionaire with cases then pending before the highest court.
Damn. And a guy whose wife organized the transport buses for the 01.06.21 rioters.
Updated: While the lower courts’ codes set out explicit processes for enforcement in the case of alleged violations of the code — this one does not. That is in part due to the notion that this is the highest court. And generally speaking, even though I disagree with most of his views, I do trust this Chief Justice will discipline future repeat violators, like Clarence Thomas.
But some future Chief? Not so sure, about that. Thus, I called it “watered down”. But as a lawyer and citizen, I now know I have standing to bring any future violation by Thomas directly to the federal judicial ethics commission, since the Supremes have adopted that code, as applicable — should this, or a future Chief… fail to act.
Out.
नमस्ते
Problem is that Roberts’ has nothing he can do to Thomas if the later violated any of the new Code’s rules.
ReplyDeleteThe SCOTUS presiding judge is not Thomas’ boss, only his colleague.
I hear you Richie — but the Chief has inherent authority to make a referral to the federal judicial conduct review board, just as the chief judge in any trial level (USDC) might.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, it is pretty likely that each US citizen may complain of violations by Thomas in their local USDC, as a fraud against them “under color of law”.
But Roberts could ask for a vote among his fellows — to remove him. That would force Thomas (or Alito, if he’s the violator) to sue in mandamus to try to keep his seat on the bench.
But all that said… I agree: it’s clearly just a bit of lipstick on the pig.
Cheers!