Robert's responsibility for the court's ethics crisis goes far deeper than just living in a glass house. For the past 12 years, he has rejected arguments that the court should be bound by an ethics code. In his 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary he wrote, “At the end of the day, no compilation of ethical rules can guarantee in…
Robert's responsibility for the court's ethics crisis goes far deeper than just living in a glass house. For the past 12 years, he has rejected arguments that the court should be bound by an ethics code. In his 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary he wrote, “At the end of the day, no compilation of ethical rules can guarantee integrity." Roberts seems to believe that there is something special about being a Supreme Court justice that makes them immune to the improprieties that lower judges, who are governed by an ethics code, fall victim to. One doesn't have to take his logic to the extreme to see that his position calls into question ethics codes in general. Why doesn't everyone just do the right thing and be ethical? CNN reported that Justice Roberts has recently sought unanimity among the justices for the implementation of ethical standards, but failed to get it. The public's perception of the integrity of the court will continue to slide until he does.
Meadows's testimony may have created another problem for him, a big one. His testimony addressed the heart of the state's case against him. The consequences of this decision to testify go way beyond the possibility of being charged with perjury, By taking the stand, he waived his Fifth Amendment rights. As a result, the prosecution is likely to call him to the witness stand to testify. Now he will really face a dilemma. If he refuses, that refusal can be used against him. If he takes the stand and asserts the Fifth Amendment to specific questions, those answers might constitute admissions. If he answers the questions, his prior testimony under oath could be used to impeach him. This was a very risky move that his lawyers undoubtedly warned him about. It bespeaks desperation.
Great analysis Jon. Having waived the 5th once should prevent him from asserting it as to this specific issue at trial in either court, shouldn’t it?
As to the CJ, he should have instituted the same ethics requirements that all other federal judges have to abide by as soon as he assumed the office! His refusal to do so because several of the right wing justices refused to agree is indefensible and should be at the very top of his biographical record for all to see forever!
What a stupid thing to write: “At the end of the day, no compilation of ethical rules can guarantee integrity." Therefore lets have no ethical rules for the Supreme Court since they cannot guarantee integrity. Which is what the Supreme Court has. No ethic rules. No integrity.
Then it follows "At the end of day, no compilation of laws can guarantee that there will be no crime." So why have laws?
"Laws protect our general safety, and ensure our rights as citizens against abuses by other people, by organizations, and by the government itself. We have laws to help provide for our general safety."
Robert's responsibility for the court's ethics crisis goes far deeper than just living in a glass house. For the past 12 years, he has rejected arguments that the court should be bound by an ethics code. In his 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary he wrote, “At the end of the day, no compilation of ethical rules can guarantee integrity." Roberts seems to believe that there is something special about being a Supreme Court justice that makes them immune to the improprieties that lower judges, who are governed by an ethics code, fall victim to. One doesn't have to take his logic to the extreme to see that his position calls into question ethics codes in general. Why doesn't everyone just do the right thing and be ethical? CNN reported that Justice Roberts has recently sought unanimity among the justices for the implementation of ethical standards, but failed to get it. The public's perception of the integrity of the court will continue to slide until he does.
Meadows's testimony may have created another problem for him, a big one. His testimony addressed the heart of the state's case against him. The consequences of this decision to testify go way beyond the possibility of being charged with perjury, By taking the stand, he waived his Fifth Amendment rights. As a result, the prosecution is likely to call him to the witness stand to testify. Now he will really face a dilemma. If he refuses, that refusal can be used against him. If he takes the stand and asserts the Fifth Amendment to specific questions, those answers might constitute admissions. If he answers the questions, his prior testimony under oath could be used to impeach him. This was a very risky move that his lawyers undoubtedly warned him about. It bespeaks desperation.
Great analysis Jon. Having waived the 5th once should prevent him from asserting it as to this specific issue at trial in either court, shouldn’t it?
As to the CJ, he should have instituted the same ethics requirements that all other federal judges have to abide by as soon as he assumed the office! His refusal to do so because several of the right wing justices refused to agree is indefensible and should be at the very top of his biographical record for all to see forever!
What a stupid thing to write: “At the end of the day, no compilation of ethical rules can guarantee integrity." Therefore lets have no ethical rules for the Supreme Court since they cannot guarantee integrity. Which is what the Supreme Court has. No ethic rules. No integrity.
Then it follows "At the end of day, no compilation of laws can guarantee that there will be no crime." So why have laws?
"Laws protect our general safety, and ensure our rights as citizens against abuses by other people, by organizations, and by the government itself. We have laws to help provide for our general safety."
As ethic rules do.
https://judiciallearningcenter.org/law-and-the-rule-of-law/#:~:text=Laws%20protect%20our%20general%20safety,provide%20for%20our%20general%20safety.