XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.society.liberalism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: soc.retirement, talk.politics.misc   
   From: nowomr@protonmail.com   
      
   Supreme Court Justice Alito Slams Congress’ Efforts To Impose Code Of   
   Ethics On Court   
      
   "I am highly offended by ethics.  They're as anti-conservative as it   
   goes."   
      
      
      
      
   Democratic lawmakers have moved forward with legislation that would force   
   the Supreme Court to adopt a code of ethics, as lower federal judges are   
   already required to follow, with the Senate Judiciary Committee advancing   
   long-shot legislation last week that would require the court to impose an   
   ethics code and create a method for processing complaints if any justices   
   violate it.   
      
   The push for the court to adopt a code of ethics came in response to a   
   series of ethics controversies that have come out involving the court’s   
   justices—including Alito, who the New York Times reported may have leaked   
   the ruling in 2014’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby to a conservative donor, and   
   who ProPublica reported accepted a luxury fishing trip from billionaire   
   Paul Singer without disclosing it, even as Singer’s hedge fund had   
   business before the court.   
      
   PROMOTED   
      
   In an interview with the Journal, Alito said he believes Congress doesn’t   
   have the power to force the court to impose an ethics code, saying   
   “Congress did not create the Supreme Court” and that while it might be   
   “controversial” to say so, “No provision in the Constitution gives   
   [lawmakers] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.”   
      
   No other justices have commented on the pending legislation, and Alito   
   told the Journal while he “do[esn’t] think I should say” how his   
   colleagues feel about the issue, “it is something we have all thought   
   about.”   
      
   Legal experts criticized Alito’s comments to the Journal, with University   
   of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck saying it was “stunning” Alito   
   would make such a comment, and his position is “belied by 234 years of   
   practice, and would turn the separation of powers totally on its head.”   
      
   Congress already regulates aspects of the Supreme Court beyond a code of   
   ethics—such as passing the court’s budget, and imposing financial   
   disclosure requirements on justices—and Vladeck pointed to Article III,   
   Section 2 of the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction   
   over cases “under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”   
      
   Forbes Daily: Get our best stories, exclusive reporting and essential   
   analysis of the day’s news in your inbox every weekday.   
      
   By signing up, you accept and agree to our Terms of Service (including the   
   class action waiver and arbitration provisions), and Privacy Statement.   
   Crucial Quote   
      
   ??“I marvel at all the nonsense that has been written about me in the last   
   year,” Alito told the Journal, saying that while “the traditional idea   
   about how judges and justices should behave is they should be mute” in the   
   face of criticism and let others defend them, “that’s just not happening.   
   And so at a certain point I’ve said to myself, nobody else is going to do   
   this, so I have to defend myself.”   
   What To Watch For   
      
   The ethics legislation in Congress is unlikely to become law, as   
   Republicans have heavily opposed the Democratic attempts to impose a code   
   of ethics on the court, characterizing it as a partisan campaign against   
   the conservative-leaning court as punishment for issuing rulings that   
   Democrats don’t like. The Washington Post and the Journal have reported   
   the Supreme Court has spent years considering whether to impose a code of   
   ethics on itself, rather than Congress taking the lead, but justices have   
   been unable to reach a consensus on the issue and nothing has come to   
   fruition. The court has declined to publicly comment on its efforts to   
   impose a code of ethics, though Chief Justice John Roberts said in May he   
   was looking into how to make sure “that we as a court adhere to the   
   highest standards of conduct.”   
   Surprising Fact   
      
   Alito’s interview with the Journal was conducted in the newspaper’s op-ed   
   section by attorney David Rivkin, who has litigated at the Supreme Court   
   and has a case before the court next term. Rivkin also represents   
   conservative legal activist Leonard Leo, who has been criticized for his   
   role in shaping the conservative-leaning Supreme Court, and responded on   
   Leo’s behalf to a recent congressional subpoena asking about Leo’s   
   relationship with Alito, after ProPublica reported Leo also attended   
   Singer’s luxury fishing trip. The request was part of a congressional   
   investigation into the Supreme Court’s ethics issues, as Alito opposes.   
   Chief Critic   
      
   Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who introduced the ethics bill, said on   
   Twitter that Rivkin’s authoring of the Journal interview “shows how small   
   and shallow the pool of operatives is around this captured Court.” His   
   office directed Forbes to comments the senator made when the Judiciary   
   Committee voted on the legislation, when Whitehouse noted “the Court’s   
   financial disclosure requirements are a law, passed by Congress; its   
   recusal requirements are a law, passed by Congress; and the body that   
   implements financial disclosure and code of conduct issues is the Judicial   
   Conference, a body created by Congress. ... For decades the justices   
   themselves have never objected to, and have actually, repeatedly and   
   without complaint, complied with this structure, so even the Court has   
   demonstrated it doesn’t believe that canard.”   
   Tangent   
      
   Alito’s interview with Rivkin for the Journal included a number of other   
   comments about the court’s work. The justice said he and his conservative   
   colleagues have “very serious differences” when it comes to how they   
   decide cases, with Justice Clarence Thomas giving less weight to precedent   
   than others, for instance, and Roberts “put[ing] a high premium on   
   consensus.” Alito said he puts an emphasis on historical context, noting   
   he didn’t believe same-sex marriage should have been legalized because   
   “nobody in 1868 thought that the 14th Amendment was going to protect the   
   right to same-sex marriage,” and that anti-discrimination statutes that   
   prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex shouldn’t include sexual   
   orientation and gender identity because it was clear lawmakers hadn’t   
   intended that when passing laws in 1964. Alito also defended the court   
   overturning Roe v. Wade and the federal right to an abortion, saying,   
   “Some decisions—and I think that Roe and [abortion rights case Planned   
   Parenthood v. Casey] fell in this category—are so egregiously wrong, so   
   clearly wrong, that’s a very strong factor in support of overruling.” The   
   court’s decisions on whether to overturn its precedent are a “judgment   
   call,” Alito said, noting reasons for not overturning previous cases   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)