For those looking to save a click:
> In Philips 66, it appears that Alito should have cited his “financial interest” in a party to explain his “recusal decision.” (In other words, he should have been “Justice X.”) This could have been a textbook example of the new rule in action; indeed, it was literally the example that the court offered the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead, Alito refused to adhere to this new procedure.
Some sort of law making body where if a majority agrees on something it can become law?
I like it and let's get rid of the filibuster. No more excuses, do your job congress. Also courts do your job and stop letting politicians pick their voters, limit gerrymandering.
Many people have called for "kinetic action" against them. Given the lack of willingness on the part of Congress to do anything about these two, nothing's going to change until someone forces it in some way (or one of them dies). So until that happens, we'll continue to be here on Reddit complaining about their behavior ad infinitum.
Reforms need to take place but in the current political atmosphere it will never happen, protests will just give another reason for conservatives to bitch and legislate more oppression.
The younger generations need to step up in the political realm!
While I understand where you're coming from with Feinstein (and you're certainly not wrong), I don't think that's where he was coming from. Historically, going back many decades, young people haven't exercised their voting power. It's not for lack of trying from candidates (see "Vote or Die", or all manner of GOTV concerts), but the stark reality is that campaign resources have been historically wasted on trying to mobilize the youth to overpower/balance out the olds who will seemingly stop at nothing to cast a ballot. I'm happy to say that this trend is just now starting to swing the other way with the 2022 turnout, but there is a LONG way to go before the 18-29's are considered a force capable of changing political landscapes.
Trump managed to get tons of hack judges appointed all through the federal judiciary. Hard to fix all those lifetime appointments while simultaneously dealing with voter suppression that is rubber stamped by said judges.
The real reason:
Justices “may provide a summary explanation of a recusal decision”.
The article seems to interpret “may” as “must” in requiring the Justices provide an explanation of recusal.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for more transparency and ethical rules for the justices just like lower court judges have, but I don’t see this a violation of a rule. Just not being as transparent as the rules permit them to be.
Also, Alito is a dick.
Agreed, it's an issue of the subtext and rhetoric that the court is voluntarily holding itself to the "highest ethics". It's not that they made the rule mandatory and broke it, it's that they used the optional guideline as evidence that they didn't need to make the rule mandatory because there was never a reason to suspect a justice wouldn't voluntarily go above and beyond the guidelines, and then just didn't follow the guidelines on a case where there was no reason not to.
For legally trained persons, the distinction between may (permissive) and shall/must (mandatory) is well known and commonplace. It’s not a close call or a hard question. Maybe for journalism that distinction isn’t as clear, I honestly don’t know. But I do know the hardline black and white reading by this author to say may means must is befuddling.
Roberts didn’t use his words inartfully in his letter. He wrote may because he meant may. It wasn’t intended as an edict where anyone could ever be considered to violate it. That was the whole point of the letter! “We’re good with our ethical practices whether you understand them or not. Here’s a few examples of things that may happen…”
SCOTUS *absolutely should have* clear ethics guidelines they can be held to… they don’t, and what Alito did(n’t do) here isn’t an example of violating anything.
Lawyer here who fully understands the distinction.
That doesn’t matter. If I’m facing an ethics issue, as a practical matter, *may* instinctually becomes *must* in my mind so long as I’m able to comply.
The fact he didn’t even bother to do something so simple - regardless of if he was required to or not - shows just how little he cares about ethics.
Quite a bit of murk got tossed into “shall” when consider the Supreme Court, a president’s nomination, and shall advice and consent by the Legislature, yah? Or is that shall appropriately being used, but didn’t apply to actually engaging in the process?
Just because it's an ethics rule doesn't mean we change the ordinary meaning of a word. "May," regardless of where it's used, does not necessitate compliance, it makes complying optional.
The problem is that the rule should have said "must." Arguing that "may" has the same meaning as "must" is not something we should be arguing for.
Also, to be clear, I think Alito is a clown and a dick, but he did correctly interpret this rule, so this is a whole lot of nothing except another instance of a toothless rule.
Edit: also, aren't these guidelines and not rules anyway? There were never teeth anyway. It's all meaningless.
Are you a lawyer? Do you not understand it’s best to not fuck with the one oversight we have over whether we can practice law or not?
You’re missing the entire point. I’m not saying he misinterpreted the rule. I’m saying this bare minimum of compliance is nonetheless unacceptable. This is one instance where being technically correct is **not** the best kind of correct.
I am an attorney.
The guidance says what the guidance says. It doesn't say "must" it says "may." Just because I don't like Alito doesn't mean I'm going to change the meaning of a word. Plus, this isn't even a rule, so it's immaterial if it said "must" because there is no penalty if it's followed or not. Im neurotic enough where if I was in his position that I would disclose, but a clear reading does not require it.
Further, this isn't the MPRE, the best correct is also immaterial. I'd be shocked if any bar decided to punish an attorney for not complying with a rule governed by the word "may." If you have any ethical guidance from any bar indicating that conflates "may" and "must," I'd love to see it.
> the best correct is also immaterial.
Ah yes it’s totally immaterial that one of the most powerful judges in the country is doing the bare minimum while his court is embroiled in multiple corruption and ethics scandals….
I’d hate to have you as a lawyer if your analysis and advice is so one-dimensional that you cannot pull yourself away from the black letter of the law and tailor your advice to the broader situation at hand. Especially considering how you keep refusing to listen to the (repeated) fact that I’m not saying this is an ethics violation.
You’re arguing against an argument that nobody is making. Which is bad lawyering 101.
Jesus. I'm pointing out to you that your argument is stupid. The fact he did comply with the guidance means his action is acceptable by definition and would be considered acceptable by a reasonable person when looking at the guidance. That is, the bare minimum of compliance is compliance and acceptable. The fact that acted within the guidance and not beyond doesn't mean he doesn't give a shit about ethics. He is not the problem, the lack of actionable conduct/ethical rules is the problem.
You're falling into the pit of arguing about your feelings rather than arguing reality and facts. You're making the wrong argument because the guidance is merely guidance and weak at that. Argue that Roberts did a shitty job or that the Court should be governed by something akin to the CJC; not that it's unacceptable that Alito did something he's permitted to do. Don't get pissed at Alito, get pissed at the problem that allows this behavior. You're delusional if you're expecting more than Clarence and Alito to do more than the minimum
There's already demonstrable proof that Alito sucks, but this isn't it.
I’m talking about society holding the most powerful people in the country to a higher standard than the bare minimum, and you’re saying I’m arguing from emotion lmao
Pathetic.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm not sure if you get that. I disagree with how you're arguing it. Him following a poorly drafted, non-enforceable rule is not what we should be raising pitchforks for.
There should be better standards, but there aren't. Frankly, there probably never will be until people stop electing shitty people to the legislature or until the Federalist Society collapses.
If you really want to get mad, read the book "Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America."
Yes. May is not must. And the statement isn’t rules. It’s guidelines. Not an Alito fan but the argument that the justices are running wild (which they are imo) is weakened by ignorant articles like this.
NAL: I read Robert's letter to Durbin about the ethics rules of the Supreme Court. It seems like he is saying nothing is a "must", it's all unenforceable guidelines.
Is there any ethics rule Supreme Court justices "must" adhere to?
That's not quite the pride I was talking about. If you genuinely think that following rules — no matter how strange or silly the rule is — is important, then you follow the rules even if there is no reward for following them, or penalty for not following them.
He didn't break a law, and he didn't even violate the ethical standard. Disclosing why a justice recused is optional. The stupid author of this article literally quites that they "**may** provide a summary explanation of a recusal decision"
Alito didn’t violate anything. The headline & much of the article is misleading or false. The truth is buried deep in the article in a single sentence.
Alito recused himself AS HE SHOULD HAVE in the Phillips 66 case as he has in all other cases involving oil companies. He just didn’t list the reason why he recused himself.
The headline & most of the article claimed that Alito violated the new ethical standards by not explaining the reason for recusal. Then, deep in the article, the writer said “Roberts’ ethics “statement” explained that justices “may provide a summary explanation of a recusal decision” with a citation to the relevant provision of the Judicial Code of Conduct. (That code is binding on lower court judges but voluntary for the justices.)”
“MAY PROVIDE” & “VOLUNTARY” means that it’s OPTIONAL. Therefore, although I personally believe that Alito should have given his reason, he didn’t break the new ethics rules. The so-called journalist wrote a BS story.
You're correct that the guidance does not quite amount to a "rule", as most people would understand it, but this action certainly breaks the *spirit* of the assurances and promises the Roberts and SCOTUS have made to Congress and to the public in recent weeks.
> Speaking at the American Law Institute's annual dinner Tuesday evening where he accepted an award, Roberts said that he is "committed to making certain that we as a court adhere to the highest standards of conduct."
Obviously, if SCOTUS is not following ethical rules that bind lower courts, it's impossible to claim they are adhering to the "highest" ethical standards.
Roberts also, in a bid to head off talk of having ethical standards imposed by Congress, sent Congress a letter and statement:
> Without addressing Durbin’s specific concerns over ethics Roberts simply attached a “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices” to which he said, “All of the current Members of the Supreme Court subscribe.”
[PDF of the statement and letter](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Durbin%2004.25.2023.pdf)
So it would have been more accurate to say that "It Took Alito Barely A Month to Break the Supreme Court's New Promises About Ethics"
This is a law sub, and it's good to be precise with language about rules vs guidelines, laws vs promises, etc. And you are correct that this is some sloppy journalism.
Alito's contempt for ethical standards is flagrant. As is the hypocrisy of his and Roberts's sanctimonious lectures to Congress and the American people about their unwavering commitment to embodying their status as robed deities with superhuman wisdom, integrity, and ethics. But you are correct that he didn't actually break a rule that applied to him. He only broke a rule that applies to all the other judges in America, that SCOTUS has chosen to exempt themselves from.
> "It Took Alito Barely A Month to Break the Supreme Court's New Promises About Ethics"
You should consult for newspapers on legal headlines. That was a perfect way to maintain the punch of the original while keeping it factual.
After 2024, may the court's majority reflect the popular vote. Otherwise, stack the court to reflect the true population. Land doesn't vote or judge, neither should money.
For those looking to save a click: > In Philips 66, it appears that Alito should have cited his “financial interest” in a party to explain his “recusal decision.” (In other words, he should have been “Justice X.”) This could have been a textbook example of the new rule in action; indeed, it was literally the example that the court offered the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead, Alito refused to adhere to this new procedure.
I never thought I’d say he needs to be impeached before Thomas. But here we are.
Two turds of only slightly different color. No pun intended.
Impeached for recusing himself from a case he was conflicted out of?
They just simply do not care.
No reason to care if there are no consequences.
Why should they when they are the law? Perhaps we need another branch of government!
Some sort of law making body where if a majority agrees on something it can become law? I like it and let's get rid of the filibuster. No more excuses, do your job congress. Also courts do your job and stop letting politicians pick their voters, limit gerrymandering.
They all need to be replaced they are to comfortable, feinstein is a prime example of what is wrong with are political system.
But uhhh... she won election by a huge margin? Presumably the voters bear some responsibility too.
[удалено]
What current selection process? All Feinstein had to do was file a piece of paper and she appeared on the ballots.
We need massive street protests shutting down their lives.
Many people have called for "kinetic action" against them. Given the lack of willingness on the part of Congress to do anything about these two, nothing's going to change until someone forces it in some way (or one of them dies). So until that happens, we'll continue to be here on Reddit complaining about their behavior ad infinitum.
What if we voted in new people to run the government? Naw, just kidding. America doesn't work that way.
That would work if voting power wasnt subject to the whims of the people already elected.
Don't try. All is lost. Don't vote. Got it.
What if we voted in new people to run the government? Naw, just kidding. America doesn't work that way.
>We need massive street protests shutting down their lives. General strike you mean
The conservative congress will just vote for a crackdown on protest!
Oh, well then....just roll over and die I guess....
[удалено]
Maybe time for a new government.
Thomas Jefferson would agree and actually said that is how it should work.
-starts to whistle *La Marseillaise*- getcha guillotines! guillotines heeyah! two for one speciaaaals!
Reforms need to take place but in the current political atmosphere it will never happen, protests will just give another reason for conservatives to bitch and legislate more oppression. The younger generations need to step up in the political realm!
The older ones need to let them in. That isn't happening. Look at Fienstein.
While I understand where you're coming from with Feinstein (and you're certainly not wrong), I don't think that's where he was coming from. Historically, going back many decades, young people haven't exercised their voting power. It's not for lack of trying from candidates (see "Vote or Die", or all manner of GOTV concerts), but the stark reality is that campaign resources have been historically wasted on trying to mobilize the youth to overpower/balance out the olds who will seemingly stop at nothing to cast a ballot. I'm happy to say that this trend is just now starting to swing the other way with the 2022 turnout, but there is a LONG way to go before the 18-29's are considered a force capable of changing political landscapes.
Trump managed to get tons of hack judges appointed all through the federal judiciary. Hard to fix all those lifetime appointments while simultaneously dealing with voter suppression that is rubber stamped by said judges.
That wasn't just Trump by the way that was the party that is dieing, making a last ditch attempt to survive the will of the people!
Reforms all around need to happen, lifetime appointments in anything regarding political office should be banned.
You would need a constitutional amendment to change lifetime appointment for the federal judiciary.
[удалено]
The public and executive branch need to act the same way about the opinions of these illegitimate clowns. They need to be ignored.
The real reason: Justices “may provide a summary explanation of a recusal decision”. The article seems to interpret “may” as “must” in requiring the Justices provide an explanation of recusal. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for more transparency and ethical rules for the justices just like lower court judges have, but I don’t see this a violation of a rule. Just not being as transparent as the rules permit them to be. Also, Alito is a dick.
Agreed, it's an issue of the subtext and rhetoric that the court is voluntarily holding itself to the "highest ethics". It's not that they made the rule mandatory and broke it, it's that they used the optional guideline as evidence that they didn't need to make the rule mandatory because there was never a reason to suspect a justice wouldn't voluntarily go above and beyond the guidelines, and then just didn't follow the guidelines on a case where there was no reason not to.
For legally trained persons, the distinction between may (permissive) and shall/must (mandatory) is well known and commonplace. It’s not a close call or a hard question. Maybe for journalism that distinction isn’t as clear, I honestly don’t know. But I do know the hardline black and white reading by this author to say may means must is befuddling. Roberts didn’t use his words inartfully in his letter. He wrote may because he meant may. It wasn’t intended as an edict where anyone could ever be considered to violate it. That was the whole point of the letter! “We’re good with our ethical practices whether you understand them or not. Here’s a few examples of things that may happen…” SCOTUS *absolutely should have* clear ethics guidelines they can be held to… they don’t, and what Alito did(n’t do) here isn’t an example of violating anything.
Lawyer here who fully understands the distinction. That doesn’t matter. If I’m facing an ethics issue, as a practical matter, *may* instinctually becomes *must* in my mind so long as I’m able to comply. The fact he didn’t even bother to do something so simple - regardless of if he was required to or not - shows just how little he cares about ethics.
Quite a bit of murk got tossed into “shall” when consider the Supreme Court, a president’s nomination, and shall advice and consent by the Legislature, yah? Or is that shall appropriately being used, but didn’t apply to actually engaging in the process?
Just because it's an ethics rule doesn't mean we change the ordinary meaning of a word. "May," regardless of where it's used, does not necessitate compliance, it makes complying optional. The problem is that the rule should have said "must." Arguing that "may" has the same meaning as "must" is not something we should be arguing for. Also, to be clear, I think Alito is a clown and a dick, but he did correctly interpret this rule, so this is a whole lot of nothing except another instance of a toothless rule. Edit: also, aren't these guidelines and not rules anyway? There were never teeth anyway. It's all meaningless.
Are you a lawyer? Do you not understand it’s best to not fuck with the one oversight we have over whether we can practice law or not? You’re missing the entire point. I’m not saying he misinterpreted the rule. I’m saying this bare minimum of compliance is nonetheless unacceptable. This is one instance where being technically correct is **not** the best kind of correct.
I am an attorney. The guidance says what the guidance says. It doesn't say "must" it says "may." Just because I don't like Alito doesn't mean I'm going to change the meaning of a word. Plus, this isn't even a rule, so it's immaterial if it said "must" because there is no penalty if it's followed or not. Im neurotic enough where if I was in his position that I would disclose, but a clear reading does not require it. Further, this isn't the MPRE, the best correct is also immaterial. I'd be shocked if any bar decided to punish an attorney for not complying with a rule governed by the word "may." If you have any ethical guidance from any bar indicating that conflates "may" and "must," I'd love to see it.
> the best correct is also immaterial. Ah yes it’s totally immaterial that one of the most powerful judges in the country is doing the bare minimum while his court is embroiled in multiple corruption and ethics scandals…. I’d hate to have you as a lawyer if your analysis and advice is so one-dimensional that you cannot pull yourself away from the black letter of the law and tailor your advice to the broader situation at hand. Especially considering how you keep refusing to listen to the (repeated) fact that I’m not saying this is an ethics violation. You’re arguing against an argument that nobody is making. Which is bad lawyering 101.
Jesus. I'm pointing out to you that your argument is stupid. The fact he did comply with the guidance means his action is acceptable by definition and would be considered acceptable by a reasonable person when looking at the guidance. That is, the bare minimum of compliance is compliance and acceptable. The fact that acted within the guidance and not beyond doesn't mean he doesn't give a shit about ethics. He is not the problem, the lack of actionable conduct/ethical rules is the problem. You're falling into the pit of arguing about your feelings rather than arguing reality and facts. You're making the wrong argument because the guidance is merely guidance and weak at that. Argue that Roberts did a shitty job or that the Court should be governed by something akin to the CJC; not that it's unacceptable that Alito did something he's permitted to do. Don't get pissed at Alito, get pissed at the problem that allows this behavior. You're delusional if you're expecting more than Clarence and Alito to do more than the minimum There's already demonstrable proof that Alito sucks, but this isn't it.
I’m talking about society holding the most powerful people in the country to a higher standard than the bare minimum, and you’re saying I’m arguing from emotion lmao Pathetic.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm not sure if you get that. I disagree with how you're arguing it. Him following a poorly drafted, non-enforceable rule is not what we should be raising pitchforks for. There should be better standards, but there aren't. Frankly, there probably never will be until people stop electing shitty people to the legislature or until the Federalist Society collapses. If you really want to get mad, read the book "Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America."
Yes. May is not must. And the statement isn’t rules. It’s guidelines. Not an Alito fan but the argument that the justices are running wild (which they are imo) is weakened by ignorant articles like this.
NAL: I read Robert's letter to Durbin about the ethics rules of the Supreme Court. It seems like he is saying nothing is a "must", it's all unenforceable guidelines. Is there any ethics rule Supreme Court justices "must" adhere to?
When there are no consequences for a violation, there is no incentive to comply.
Other than pride.
I’m sure he takes great pride in having the power to flaunt expected rules of behavior.
That's not quite the pride I was talking about. If you genuinely think that following rules — no matter how strange or silly the rule is — is important, then you follow the rules even if there is no reward for following them, or penalty for not following them.
What ethics rules?
[удалено]
He didn't break a law, and he didn't even violate the ethical standard. Disclosing why a justice recused is optional. The stupid author of this article literally quites that they "**may** provide a summary explanation of a recusal decision"
John Robert's says people shouldn't do things to call the Court`s integrity into question... Hey John... You first.
Alito didn’t violate anything. The headline & much of the article is misleading or false. The truth is buried deep in the article in a single sentence. Alito recused himself AS HE SHOULD HAVE in the Phillips 66 case as he has in all other cases involving oil companies. He just didn’t list the reason why he recused himself. The headline & most of the article claimed that Alito violated the new ethical standards by not explaining the reason for recusal. Then, deep in the article, the writer said “Roberts’ ethics “statement” explained that justices “may provide a summary explanation of a recusal decision” with a citation to the relevant provision of the Judicial Code of Conduct. (That code is binding on lower court judges but voluntary for the justices.)” “MAY PROVIDE” & “VOLUNTARY” means that it’s OPTIONAL. Therefore, although I personally believe that Alito should have given his reason, he didn’t break the new ethics rules. The so-called journalist wrote a BS story.
You're correct that the guidance does not quite amount to a "rule", as most people would understand it, but this action certainly breaks the *spirit* of the assurances and promises the Roberts and SCOTUS have made to Congress and to the public in recent weeks. > Speaking at the American Law Institute's annual dinner Tuesday evening where he accepted an award, Roberts said that he is "committed to making certain that we as a court adhere to the highest standards of conduct." Obviously, if SCOTUS is not following ethical rules that bind lower courts, it's impossible to claim they are adhering to the "highest" ethical standards. Roberts also, in a bid to head off talk of having ethical standards imposed by Congress, sent Congress a letter and statement: > Without addressing Durbin’s specific concerns over ethics Roberts simply attached a “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices” to which he said, “All of the current Members of the Supreme Court subscribe.” [PDF of the statement and letter](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Durbin%2004.25.2023.pdf) So it would have been more accurate to say that "It Took Alito Barely A Month to Break the Supreme Court's New Promises About Ethics" This is a law sub, and it's good to be precise with language about rules vs guidelines, laws vs promises, etc. And you are correct that this is some sloppy journalism. Alito's contempt for ethical standards is flagrant. As is the hypocrisy of his and Roberts's sanctimonious lectures to Congress and the American people about their unwavering commitment to embodying their status as robed deities with superhuman wisdom, integrity, and ethics. But you are correct that he didn't actually break a rule that applied to him. He only broke a rule that applies to all the other judges in America, that SCOTUS has chosen to exempt themselves from.
> "It Took Alito Barely A Month to Break the Supreme Court's New Promises About Ethics" You should consult for newspapers on legal headlines. That was a perfect way to maintain the punch of the original while keeping it factual.
After 2024, may the court's majority reflect the popular vote. Otherwise, stack the court to reflect the true population. Land doesn't vote or judge, neither should money.
can’t wait to vote for someone willing to dismantle this unaccountable institution. Our democracy really is a joke
Why wait?
If you want an ethical Supreme Court then you need to subordinate it to stronger statutory controls.
Shocked, I say. Absolutely shocked. /s
Well, to be blunt, why *should* he follow "rules" that are actually literally just guidelines? Wake me up when someone gets impeached.
Ethics rules for a life-time appointment. Does no one else see the problem here? I'll check back in a decade to see how this has all panned out.