'Impartial' Supreme Court Justices Raise Money for Opponents of Health Care Law

Supreme Court Justices did what???

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.

They clearly violated their own Code of Conduct.

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.

Common Cause News Release
What say you, ATS?

First, weren't Federalists supposed to be for more power, as compared to anti-federalists, to the central government?
Second, wow. I knew presidents selected judges who side with their views, but this is going a little too far. Sure, we all know they aren't really impartial. But such an open display of it makes a mockery of our judicial system.
Third, /facepalm.


You know what?
They aren't just making a mockery of our system...they are bastardizing it.

The Judge had better recuse(selling?) otherwise, the judgement will be thrown out.

Even I am disgusted at this, and I totally think this "obamacare" is unconstitutional.

If the personal mandate to purchase health insurance products is upheld by the supreme court then the government must be dismantled and restarted from its original constitutional constraints.

It will mark the complete end of individual liberty and total subjugation to the hive mind collectivist view that every worker bee must buy into the corporatist system.

This is nothing but a distraction from a very serious constitutional issue. One that might end very badly for the corporatist in chief and his minions come the next election.

I'm sorry, I don't get it. Supreme Court Justices speak at a group's dinner and that's enough to buy off the Justice?

Or are you saying that the Justices involved were displaying a conservative cast of mind? Everybody knew that was how they thought when they were apponted and confirmed.

What's the big deal?

He better recuse himself from any opinions or rulings on health care law, then.

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...

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...

Keeping in mind that this is all about upholding principals, I have to point out that the fact that the 5th Congress advanced this law and John Adams signed it doesn't make it right. It was still a flagrant violation of Constitutional principal. The fact that they knew the intentions of the framers of the Constitution is beside the point--and has always been beside the point. Arguing that some have acted against the high-minded principals they espoused just yesterday--particularly when they themselves had articulated them--does not make their violations of those principals go down any easier....

ETA: ...even if it seemed like a good idea at the time....

Again, there seems to be some confusion. I looked at the Common Cause press release that was sourced. The only Code of Conduct they mentioned is one that applies to other federal judges, they even say that in the press release.

The point is, the Code of Conduct everyone is referring to specifically does not apply to Supreme Court Justices. There's nothing that he did that violated that code.

Oh, and if he doesn't recuse himself, there is no penalty possible and the decision does not get thrown out. It seems weak, but all of the solutions are much worse.

reply to post by jlv70

My apologies. Upon re-reading your post, I realized I had missed your point. Adams was a Federalist; got it. Sorry.

reply to post by charles1952

What "He" are you referring to? The news release references two (2) supreme court justices, by name:

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.

reply to post by gwynnhwyfar


Sorry, I was wrong. Make it they. I was focusing mentally on Thomas and forgot Scalia.

Originally posted by charles1952
Again, there seems to be some confusion. I looked at the Common Cause press release that was sourced. The only Code of Conduct they mentioned is one that applies to other federal judges, they even say that in the press release.

The point is, the Code of Conduct everyone is referring to specifically does not apply to Supreme Court Justices. There's nothing that he did that violated that code.

Oh, and if he doesn't recuse himself, there is no penalty possible and the decision does not get thrown out. It seems weak, but all of the solutions are much worse.

Good point. Perhaps they thought that the Code of Conduct applies *ONLY* to other Federal judges. Maybe nobody would notice if it is not adhered to by the HIGHEST judges in our land. Hmmmmmm.... Am I wrong that we should be ouraged about this, after all, if it applies to other Federal justices, why should the Code of Conduct apply to the Supreme Court Justices?

“This stunning breech of ethics and indifference to the code belies claims by several justices that the Court abides by the same rules that apply all other federal judges,” said Common Cause President Bob Edgar. “The justices were wining and dining at a black tie fundraiser with attorneys who have pending cases before the court. Their appearance and assistance in fundraising for this event undercuts any claims of impartiality, and is unacceptable.”

reply to post by gwynnhwyfar

That quote you use brings up a good point. Please don't kick me for this, but, there are two ethics codes. (I'm sorry, I know you didn't want to hear that.) Here's an explanation taken from a National Public Radio article:

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.

reply to post by charles1952

I guess when you make the rules you can do anything you please. Doesn't make it right though, in my book.

reply to post by gwynnhwyfar


Only one thing a clear conflict of interest. If I had my choice I would arrest them and put them on trial in the state they are in, unfortunatly I am not a sheriff.

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.
... .

What does this say about Justice Kagan, then Solicitor General, jumping with glee at the passage of the PPACA?

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails.

Kagan on Obamacare: ‘They Have the Votes, Larry!! Simply Amazing

How would you feel presenting your case against this legislation in front of a judge who finds its passage "simply amazing?"

Get real. The SCOTUS has been seeded with Obama acolytes and leftist supporters who will do anything to destroy the Constitution.

jw

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...

It appears that the Federalist Society isn't grown out of 19th century federalist thought, but out of the ideology of federalism which is, ironically, almost the complete opposite of federalist thought. Sometimes the English language is dumb .

/TOA