Suppose you were party to a lawsuit and you learned that the judge handling your case was hobnobbing with lawyers on the other side and helping to raise money for a group dedicated to defeating you in court? You'd be pretty uneasy about your prospects for an impartial hearing, wouldn't you? Well, as Common Cause details in a news release today, three members of our Supreme Court were guests last Thursday at an annual fundraising dinner sponsored by the Federalist Society, a self-styled association of conservative and libertarian lawyers that is providing much of the intellectual firepower behind efforts to overturn the landmark health care reform law passed last year. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were honorees and speakers at the black tie event and Justice Samuel Alito, a regular at Federalist Society gatherings, was in the audience, according to a program prepared for the dinner. Their appearance came just hours after the nine-member Supreme Court met to consider placing a case challenging the health care law on its docket. The court announced on Monday that it will consider that case during this term.
This kind of activity by members of our highest court undercuts any claim of impartiality in the health care litigation by the justices involved. Worse yet, it clearly violates the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, a set of ethical standards the Supreme Court helps enforce on lower federal courts but has refused to impose on itself. The Code warns judges to abstain from speaking or serving as the guest of honor at any fundraising event.
In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance. Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution. And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.
Originally posted by jlv70
This is wrong on so many levels, first the most obvious and blatant ones, Supreme Court Judges in flagrant violation of the Code OF Conduct for US judges.
The fact they they do it right out in the open with no sense of shame, speaks volumes about the arrogance of power, they feel they can do whatever they want with impunity.
Here's where it gets ironic, they were at a Federalist Society gathering to support overturning the health care law.
The second president of the US, John Adams was a Federalist.
In 1798 John Adams signed this bill into law:
In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance. Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution. And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.
Source:www.forbes.com...
Hours after considering whether to hear challenges to national health care reform, Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia were honored Thursday at a fundraiser sponsored in part by law firms engaged in the litigation. This is an apparent breach of ethical standards that apply to every other federal judge.
There are two sets of ethics rules that govern the federal courts. The first is a statute that applies to all federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. The statute has a general rule that bars a judge from participating in any case in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The statute then spells out specifics — a judge must recuse himself if he has even one share of stock in a company that is a party to a case, or if a close family member has a financial interest, or if the judge participated in the case while a lawyer or government official. Again, these are legal requirements that apply to all federal judges, including Supreme Court justices.
Then there is the judicial Code of Conduct, which applies only to lower federal court judges. The code is described by experts as an advisory or aspirational set of guidelines. It says, for example, that judges should not join discriminatory clubs and should not fundraise. While the code is aspirational, judicial disciplinary committees can and do rely on it in admonishing judges when they step over the line.
The Code of Conduct, however, does not purport to apply to Supreme Court justices, a fact that has provoked much of the editorial page criticism. Many of the justices, nonetheless, have said they do in fact feel bound by the code.
Originally posted by jlv70
This is wrong on so many levels, first the most obvious and blatant ones, Supreme Court Judges in flagrant violation of the Code OF Conduct for US judges.
The fact they they do it right out in the open with no sense of shame, speaks volumes about the arrogance of power, they feel they can do whatever they want with impunity.
... .
“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails.
Originally posted by jlv70
This is wrong on so many levels, first the most obvious and blatant ones, Supreme Court Judges in flagrant violation of the Code OF Conduct for US judges.
The fact they they do it right out in the open with no sense of shame, speaks volumes about the arrogance of power, they feel they can do whatever they want with impunity.
Here's where it gets ironic, they were at a Federalist Society gathering to support overturning the health care law.
The second president of the US, John Adams was a Federalist.
In 1798 John Adams signed this bill into law:
In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance. Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution. And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.
Source:www.forbes.com...
. 
