T2Va
Sherrilyn IfillI’m a civil rights lawyer. I don’t want to practice before a Court that’s compromised. I want a fair Court. Expansion would make this particular Court more ideologically balanced. Agree. But w/o a real, enforced ethics infrastructure, there will be 18 justices not fully disclosing financials, not compelled to recuse, praying in chambers w/their own faith leaders, going on trips w/groups filing briefs in cases before them, owning stock in indiv companies whose interests are before the Court.
This is not a “centrist” position. B/c the claims of those who are most marginalized will never have the same chance in a system that is “unrigged” in one way, but not in these others. “Ideology” is a very broad term that doesn’t capture the ways in which what is considered “liberal” can leave intact interests and relationships that do not benefit the clients I’ve been privileged to serve.
Til Klem@ifilljustice
So glad I found you here, too. Thank you for all you do.
So glad I found you here, too. Thank you for all you do.
MauiWahine@ifilljustice Itʻs so good to see you on Mastodon. Canʻt wait for the other commentators to leave twitter and come over here.
lesundini@ifilljustice Still receiving replies?
Dan Cline@ifilljustice How would an ethical code for the Supreme Court be enforced?
WndlB@dancline @ifilljustice And by whom?
KProfsBlog@dancline @ifilljustice Alas, there's the rub. Either the Chief would have to enforce the rules (would he?) or it would be grounds for impeachment (not gonna happen).
Jim Doppke@KProfsBlog @dancline @ifilljustice There are obstacles to creating a SCOTUS-focused institution comparable to attorney disciplinary agencies. But Congress could start small w/calls to end certain practices (reserved seats at oral arg, chambers visits, justice attendance at Historical Society events). If unheeded, pass legislation about it even w/o enforcement mechanism. The infrastructure can begin to be formed with these steps and further crafted along the way.
@jimdoppke Justice attendance at historical society events? Why is that a problem? I would love for the Justices to attend meetings of the AHA or the OAH or, better still, the American Society for Legal History. What is your concern?
@KProfsBlog referring to the SCOTUS Historical Society that was brought up in the NYT story. I realize that trying to prohibit or regulate that kind of thing may be problematic but I also see it as a way in which the justices became vulnerable to the influence of donors to the Society (which was Schenk's aim at the time).
Chriz@jimdoppke @KProfsBlog Citizens United
@jimdoppke
It's a challenge. Justices have clerks that are going to get involved in legal organizations. They need to be allowed to stay in contact with their clerks, but they must avoid contact when those clerks or their organizations have cases pending before the Court. How do ethics rules for lower federal courts deal with this?
It's a challenge. Justices have clerks that are going to get involved in legal organizations. They need to be allowed to stay in contact with their clerks, but they must avoid contact when those clerks or their organizations have cases pending before the Court. How do ethics rules for lower federal courts deal with this?
Raptor@KProfsBlog @dancline @ifilljustice
Elected Positions
Term Limits (or the ability to remove appointments by public consensus)
no party affiliation allowed
PerryM ✅This is the sticky wicket! You can't have Rules of any kind without enforcement procedures.
My suggestion would be to have the Justices from the US Court of Appeals rule (vote) on violations, including dismissal.
Having a SCOTUS Chief Justice without the ability to discipline Justices for Rule or Ethical violation is not workable. SO .. Allow him/her to charge an errant Justice!
It would not work to have the Legislative or Executive Branches bring charges.
My 2₵ !
@PerryM @ifilljustice But, shouldn’t we be concerned about granting that level of power to a Chief Justice? What if punishments were meted out only to those justices who disagreed with the political views of the Chief Justice?
Dan, that's a possibility, or ignoring charges for errant Justices that he/she agrees with!
I am reminded of John Roberts who worries openly about the failing credibility of "his" Court. His record also shows that is probably the least political on the present Court. I also see open frustration that he can't do anything about it!
I would be very interested in other options... suggestions?
Cat Power@ifilljustice it's truly terrifying.
Danielle Brian@ifilljustice YES. This is so important - we must not try to “return” to past norms. We must push to advance racial equity and access in all our institutions in order to achieve a democracy that works for everyone. And ethics and accountability are essential for that goal.
Dorothy4Climate
TJ@ifilljustice We need a change in judicial culture generally. Courts need to just decide the case presented to them without trying to establish global rules based on particular facts. Decide the case. Then decide the next one. Let most of it get worked out in lower courts and intervene to nudge the law in a certain direction rather than to end debate.
DrJanice@ifilljustice We fire people who lie on their job application. How about we do that for the #SCOTUS #liars?
Frederick Lane [he/him/his]This is a critically important point. Frankly, we need more transparency in all aspects of government, but the recent events at the Court underscore the vital need for a meaningful and enforceable code of ethics for the justices.
Metella@ifilljustice very good points.
Katherine RN@ifilljustice This sounds so right. I have 2 questions. 1) Who would enforce it since the Court can’t be expected to police itself - we’ve already seen that doesn’t work. 2) How do we get MOC to also write similar legislation that applies to themselves? Because we need both bodies freed from corruption for this to work.
Elizabeth Loves DEI@ifilljustice , well argued. We can't just throw more justices at the problem. They can't be allowed to continue to police themselves.
Scott Roby@Dr_Elizabeth97 @ifilljustice if a candidate comes along running on a strong ethics reform (across all branches of gov) platform, they’d get a very serious look from me.
mcdannoforever@ifilljustice What’s the solution? I always thought the court should be expanded anyways. Too few people representing such a big country
Ms. Legalese
Christopher Young@ifilljustice Does it have to be either/or? I'd like to see legislation that sets ethical standards as well as pegs the number of justices to the number of circuit courts.
ChanlELvn
US Saved 2020!@ifilljustice So true; also, why 18? There are 13 appellate circuits. My understanding is that the Court was expanded to nine justices when there were nine appellate circuits. It would seem to follow that there should now be 13 justices, so that none have to double up on circuits.
Dave Wilburn 
@ifilljustice that's a nice idea, but I fail to see how any of it is enforceable without impeachment, which seems politically nonviable when a majority of one of the major parties is actively in favor of that particular kind of corruption. Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas aren't going to change, nothing can be done to compel them to change, and they can't realistically be impeached. Diluting the influence of nakedly corrupt justices by expanding the court is a bad idea, but it's perhaps the least bad idea we have that would work.
SmokeyGeo@ifilljustice 1. there will never be an expanded court b/c you'd have to break the filibuster to do it. 2. but if you did, the next time power changes hands in DC, as it inevitably does, the court would get re-expanded. So nobody would be any better off but any shred of legitimacy would be gone
Ben Hirsch@ifilljustice Ok. But why does expansion preclude the same thorough background checks and ethical rules you propose for the 9 member court? The Senate would still vote on all nominees, they'd just be obligated to vote so that one party couldn't stonewall a nominee.
That’s Me 🫦@ifilljustice worse than that they don’t have to, they are accountable only to themselves 😡😡
@ifilljustice expand, term limits, enforceable ethics regulations
Island_Martha@ifilljustice
I agree. We must fix a broken system before adding to it.
I agree. We must fix a broken system before adding to it.
Elohi
BobbiRose.DorGal@ifilljustice I agree. Any expansion has to come with reforms. Term limits, now that we see lifetime appointment does not equate to non-partisanship & openness to compromising one’s position, are in play. But also clear rules for recusal are needed, as well as rules for justices appearing at political events. And what do we do about organizations like the Federalist Society? It makes sense to have one Justice per District, but without refirms, more of the same still possible
MrsMaxwell@ifilljustice So, what's the plan? Require justices to abide by ethics rules, and if they don't - is there an impeachment? Will the suspect justice testify before Congress? Does that put us ahead of where we are? The party in power will dictate the outcome? I like the idea of expanding the court. That will mitigate unethical behavior. #SCOTUS #justice #ethics
MrCopilot@ifilljustice Judicial Inspector General with with actual criminal and impeachment referral.
Oh look, something like this has been proposed already... many times...
Note to Congress, Blow the dust off this, add enforcement/referral powers & vote already!
https://ballotpedia.org/Inspector_General_of_the_Federal_Courts
David Miller 🇺🇸 🗽@ifilljustice
Well said. Court expansion might dilute the problems of the current court but only to a degree and only temporarily. Expansion does nothing to address the underlying issues of operating outside the bounds of standard ethical practices.
Well said. Court expansion might dilute the problems of the current court but only to a degree and only temporarily. Expansion does nothing to address the underlying issues of operating outside the bounds of standard ethical practices.
Carl Juneau@ifilljustice As a retired barrister, I couldn't agree more. This court is seriously compromised, and so is peoples' trust in justice.
AmandaGill@ifilljustice
Please, I agree.
Now, how do we get rid of the filibuster today, w/ Manchin/Sinema Obstruction machine? They’ve held Foward legislation & SCOTUS expansion hostage for several years.
I agree, we must expand the Court. It’s our only path towards re-establishing enforceable checks and balances. Thank you Ms Ifil.
⚖️🇺🇸🗽
SocialistStan@ifilljustice More supreme court is just, more supreme court. It's an inherently anti-democratic institution that should be ignored by the people and their rulings nullified through local laws.
VoteLikeYourLifeDependsOnIt@ifilljustice Agreed. There needs to be some kind of oversite that has real authority to tkae corrective, including punitive, action. Without it, there won’t be any kind of permanent improvement. Some of the current justices violate rules that are enforced on lawyers. Something as obvious as ‘avoiding even the appearance of conflict of interest’!
@ifilljustice they definitely need to be impeachably held to a Code of Conduct. It's ethically absurd to imagine that any of the highest offices or institutions in a land that accounts to The People can operate with the assumption that they answer only to themselves. How many Kings & independent Princes with that kins of power can one country have at a time anyway? Let's ask MBS.
@ifilljustice Expansion is designed to 'balance' the court. What you need is laws against them being political in the first place. Stop letting partisan presidents appoint partisan judges BECAUSE they are partisan. The supreme court justices are the true rulers of American.
LeaBug@ifilljustice what do you think about balancing the court in legislation? Make it law that it 50% conservative and 50%liberal with the Chief justice as the tiebreaker. What do you think about this?
Anti-Fatalist@ifilljustice The Supreme Court should be abolished, it's not selected democratically.
Jazz Dax Jones@ifilljustice wise words.
Everyone has a right to their opinions. No one has the right to enforce those beliefs on others especially not violently.
When jurists claim to be “originalists “, yet openly declare fascist ideals. They no longer have the right to the title.
Democratic principles are seated in the majority rules idea not authoritarian laws.
Everyone has a right to their opinions. No one has the right to enforce those beliefs on others especially not violently.
When jurists claim to be “originalists “, yet openly declare fascist ideals. They no longer have the right to the title.
Democratic principles are seated in the majority rules idea not authoritarian laws.
@ifilljustice The SCOTUS should adopt the Supreme Court Ethics Act and create an enforcement board comprised of all 13 Chief judges of the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals.