Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

What is going on in the SCOTUS?

Justice Clarence Thomas has just broken the law and nobody seems to give a damn. Justice Clarence Thomas temporarily blocked a Georgia grand jury subpoena demanding testimony from South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. This act is a clear violation of 28 U.S. Code § 455 and a criminal act.


28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
Scribbles · 36-40, F
I know right? It's clearly a violations of a federal ethics code. However he gets off consequence free just fine because he knows he won't get impeached.

The Supreme Court has a history and pattern of major ethics failures. Between 2003 and 2007, Justice Thomas failed to disclose $686,589 in his wife’s income from her work at the Heritage Foundation in violation of the Ethics in Government Act. Multiple Justices have failed to recuse themselves from cases before the Court while owning individual stocks in the parties, and Justices regularly accept lavish trips, donations to causes they support, and expensive memberships, in stark contrast to the gifts allowed under ethics restrictions imposed on other branches of government.

Around 21 Democrat lawmakers are trying to pressure Chief Justice Roberts to Create Binding Ethics Rules for the Supreme Court that includes enforceable provisions and a requirement that all Justices issue written recusal decisions. Something like that could help. Idk.
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
You a legal scholar?

When you google your statement:

Justice Clarence Thomas has just broken the law

The results certainly don't support your position.

Here's "Alternet" disingenuously reporting on it:

https://www.alternet.org/2022/03/clarence-thomas-breaking-law-insurrection/

Note they say he is "breaking the law" in the title, but when you read the article, it suddenly shifts to:

Harvard University legal scholar Laurence Tribe discussed the Clarence Thomas/Ginni Thomas scandal during a late March appearance on Lawrence O’Donnell’s MSNBC show, “The Last Word,” stressing that it is unethical for the High Court justice to rule on anything January 6-related.

Unethical and illegal are two separate concepts. Personally I wish it were not so, but here we are.

Sounds like the usual partisan bickering to me.
Northwest · M
Thomas acted alone because he has jurisdiction of the lower court that issued the original order.

He's not technically breaking the law, as he's not making a final decision. He's staying the lower court's order, until SCOTUS can make a decision. But, we're in uncharted territory here.
Crazywaterspring · 61-69, M
@Northwest The Supreme Court has been stuffed with Federalist Society hacks. They're predictable in dismantling democracy.
Budwick · 70-79, M
I think you will need to lay out a few more dots to connect.

Saying a name and quoting a law with no connection doesn't cut it.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
He certainly failed to uphold the law as written. But its a delaying move, not a final decision and may be overturned by the Full Bench.. BUT.... His action could well be one of those unintended consequence things that brings about lasting change in how accountable the Court and its justices are and damage the cause of the Conservatives in the process. This might bge that "Bridge Too Far.."😷
Where does it say a failure to self recuse is a crime?

FWIW, the lack of enforcement of SCOTUS ethics is not a new problem, and it's been raised before.
Ontheroad · M
@MistyCee Failure to follow the rules in any USC is punishable, but when it is a Justice of the SCOTUS, it does become murky as to how it is judged. That murkiness does not, however, change the fact the violation of a USC is a crime.
@Ontheroad There are plenty of provisions in the Code that aren't criminal in nature, have only civil, or in this particular case, no real consequences to the violator.

If you don't believe me, ask a lawyer or even better, a first year law student.

The problem with this one is, while you can appeal and/or refer a lower court judge for stuff like this, there's really no remedy for SC justices, except I guess trying it out as an impeachable offense with Congress.
SW-User
At this point he should recuse himself from anything even remotely political. He is, in no way, impartial.
HeidiA · 41-45, F
Well. That all sounds very political.

What’s a SCOTUS?
Northwest · M
@HeidiA Supreme Court Of The United States.
Pretzel · 61-69, M
not disputing - how is he not partial?

(I don't follow politics)
Well Clarence’s wife was one of the attempted coup members,

 
Post Comment