Democratic senators introduce bill establishing Supreme Courtterm limits

SGT Mary G. - The issue about "Ethics code for the Supreme Court" is not about a 'binding code', it's about oversight. In fact, there isn't a 'binding code' of ethics for any federal judge.

As the Judicial Conference's rules state, "Although the Code of Conduct for United States Judges may be informative, its main precepts are highly general; the Code is in many potential applications aspirational rather than a set of disciplinary rules."

I wrote one of my infamous long-winded "can't we all just get along?" posts* previously about the Supreme Court - have a read if you're interested. However, I will copy & paste a few comments:

"Understand that codes of ethics aren’t some law – they are guidelines. Does the court have ethical guidelines already? All nine of the Justices have said they follow the guidelines in the Judicial Conference’s Code of Conduct. Again, guidelines are voluntarily followed, not some law that they are punished if they don’t adhere to it. Should the Court have a formal code of ethics that they self-impose? Yes, because it will give comfort to those that seem to think you just have a bunch of unethical mavericks unless there is a formal guideline for them to follow."

I'll let you read the rest of it at the post if you want, but it basically comes down to this. A code of ethics is worth the paper it's printed on. There is an oversight process in place for the lower courts to resolve complaints of misconduct (not "complaints of ethical violations") and apply sanctions if founded (which, are rarely done because only a few are found not to be groundless and aren't dismissed).
--------------------------
* RP Post about Supreme Court Code of Ethics - https://www.rallypoint.com/status-updates/8257138
* Judicial Conference's rules - https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/jud_conduct_and_disability_308_app_b_rev-1_0.pdf
* Judicial Conference's Code of Conduct for United Stats Judges - https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/code_of_conduct_for_united_states_judges_effective_march_12_2019.pdf

CPL Douglas Chrysler - They'll never stop trying Brother Doug.

Thank You Brother Randall.

COL Randall C. - Thanks for the comment - with copy and paste and links. Maybe we, the people saying “No, that was wrong and you need to change it" and talking about recusing can discourage conflict of interest<sigh>

Great idea!

Major McLaughlin, I agree with you 100% on term limits for congress however, that’s not fear to the people that put them in office. I just wish people in these states with these dinosaurs would see their mental and physical decline and stop sending them back term after term. When it comes to the Supreme Court I’m concerned if they start trying to place term limits on Supreme Court justices, the next thing we’ll see is a president or congress trying fire or remove a justice just to manipulate the court to suit his or her party and that could be dangerous to both parties, but most importantly to the American people. I think the Supreme Court has been fair/consistent with both parties with their rulings. I know we might not like some of their rulings because, it seems they side with liberals even when there are more so called conservatives justices on the court right now so, the democrats should really be happy . I also believe the Supreme Court makes close to 95-100% of the correct decisions in accordance to our constitution, even though as a conservative I feel they help the liberals more often or they just send it back down to the lower courts for a decision. That’s just my know nothing opinion. Semper Fi

Mental decline is not the only issue at hand here. Congressional leaders were never meant to become professional politicians indefinitely. They were supposed to come in from their other occupation, bring their experience (another missing factor for many of them) to the table, and push for the legislation they promised their constituents. This is not what's happening. Instead, many learn to manipulate the system, succumb to special interests, and act as if they're part of a monarchy. Today, I think it is safe to say that a significant number of Congressional leaders are not getting re-elected because they're performing well, but because too many voters simply vote incumbent and then party line. Why? Not necessarily because everything is great, but because they fear change and prefer status quo.

SCOTUS is on the other hand a different beast, and I am more inclined to accept their long-time experiences, essentially in the legal profession (which is in contrast to what a member of Congress needs to be), as a good basis for a lifetime appointment. However, cognitive ability must be a factor for them too, but that's a different conversation. It is my belief (and I recognize my own biases) that while the Court might lean conservative today, based on who appointed them, conservatives select judges who are more inclined to interpret the law regardless of their own opinion. In contrast, I see the left more inclined to appoint those who rose through the ranks as activist judges, looking for opportunities to legislate from the bench.

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin I again agree with everything you said. especially about the way conservatives justices have ruled following constitutional law, where as a liberal justices might or probably will use more social justice in their rulings and that’s a very dangerous way to rule because there’s no precedent used in social justice. If the liberals had the majority in the Supreme Court I have no doubt they would rule more by their personal beliefs and political beliefs over whats constitutional because they believe the constitution is out of date and the framers were not representative of America today which I find totally foolish and misinformed by their own basis’s.

MSG Stan Hutchison - How does one ascertain quality of work for a politician? Isn't that the purpose of a ballot box?

Maj John Bell - It should be, but we all know it is not in every case. IMO, most legislatures are elected mostly by party.

MSG Stan Hutchison - I agree, most elected officials are elected by party. But that party selection is done largely, but not entirely, through party primaries. Sure, the party elites can to some extent put a thumb on the scale. But the reason they can put a thumb on the scale is because the majority of voters don't want to think about policy and platforms.

The electorate is lazy. They don't want to put in the time to demand real answers to real questions from their party's candidates. They don't want to dive deep into an incumbent's voting record and find out why they voted for or against a "no-brainer" piece of legislation. They want someone to tell them what to do.

I freely admit that I don't typically give democrat candidates a serious look.
1) I have no ability to vote in their party's primary.
2) For the most part, unless they've clearly pissed off their party, I know what to expect from a democrat. Now, somebody who has pissed off the DNC and is a democrat, will get a very serious look from me in the general election. I am giving both Senator Manchin and Senator RFK Jr. serious looks. I will give them both serious consideration.

Honestly, I hope President Trump doesn't win the nomination. Not because I'm against his policies. But he's not a consensus builder. I'm glad he overturned the apple cart. But the only thing worse, in my opinion is another 4 years of a Biden/Harris administration.

Right now, we need someone who can get the cart back on its wheels and build a consensus. I just don't see that candidate in either party's front runners or even a likely dark horse. We aren't done kicking each other in the shins yet.

Maj John Bell - 'The electorate is lazy. They don't want to put in the time to demand real answers to real questions from their party's candidates. They don't want to dive deep into an incumbent's voting record and find out why they voted for or against a "no-brainer" piece of legislation. They want someone to tell them what to do."

On that we can agree 100%.

Re; parties, they control most of the money, so a candidate has to comply or not get funded.