Agreed. I certainly do not respect or trust the court at this point. In fact, I am of the point that if you know what you are doing is right and the law is wrong you do not follow the law. That is what citizens in Nazi Germany had to figure out too. I am hoping that Blue States do as well in their soft secession.
No Hiro, I am not. I am talking about personal responsibility. Anarchy is the movement against having any government. I am not against government but as a member of a society we still need to have personal responsibility. I am supporting my Blue State government but not this fascist regime. We have the power if we choose to. Right now Blue States have the money. 71% of the US GDP comes from Blue Counties. We should be banding together and have the Democratic States of America. The rest of them are the Fascist States of America.
Reforming the extreme court is a necessary aspect of judiciary reform and we cannot do that without a democratic majority. Voting is SO IMPORTANT…local, state and federal. Democracy doesn’t happen sitting on the sidelines.
The current GOP MAGA congress has sworn their fealty to #47 and not to the constitution so there would be absolutely no support for reform. There are a few of the “just-us”s that should actually be impeached, IMHO, for LYING in their hearings regarding precedent and cherry picking the constitution to suit their end goal, which is empowering a unitary executive. It is so blatant that it is nauseating. Congress has given up all power of the purse to the executive branch and the judiciary is complicit. Things MUST change for current and future course correction if we want to continue to live in a democratic society.
Yes! The administration is complaining that judicial appointments are taking too long so instead of the current procedure of reviewing EACH nominee they want to do BATCH approvals. This is without any input from the democratic side of the aisle. Scary!
Time for playing by the rules is over! Time for polite discussion is over and I am no longer sure it ever existed. Fear may or may not be a factor as a result of 47’s hateful, lying speech…dissent clearly is now more risky due to MAGA hate talk and action, but silence cannot be an option.
Jen didn't mention that Justices Kagan and Jackson joined Justice Sotomayor's dissent, but you can see that they did if you click the link that Jen provided and scroll down a few pages to the beginning of the dissent.
I was implying by my comment that I'd like to see more than dissenting "opinions." I want to see the three liberals trash the others while on the bench. Embarrass them! Call them treasonous! Walk out!
Agree. She and Brown are saying the obvious to those of us who believe that our diverse nation is great because of immigrants...and it seemed improving tolerance for differences...until a soulless evil person made hate OK (with plenty of help from greedy soulless social media companies).
I used to kind of think/hope that Roberts cared about the Court and his legacy. But that is impossible to believe now. He is in there with the rest of the Heritage Foundation wrecking crew - doing their damnedest to destroy The Republic and usher in the age of Gilead.
Roberts began his rise in Republican circles in the 1980s, during his stint in the Reagan DOJ, when he was identified as a genius at twisting the constitution into a balloon animal in order to use the law itself as a weapon against civil rights and labor protections.
He's an ambitious, bloodless partisan, a technocrat, profoundly committed to undoing a century of progressive reform and progress toward democratic governance.
At first, he masked his partisan fervor under a pretense of impartiality--an endeavor in which he enjoyed the support of the Beltway press, which took him at face value and created a bit of a cult around him.
But starting with Citizens United in 2010, the mask began to slip. By now, it's gone altogether; with the press cowed and silenced, Trump in the White House, and a Republican majority in Congress (one he's determined to turn into a permanent majority) he no longer has anything to fear.
He's there to give Republicans (and whites, and Christians, provided they're very, very rich) a degree of absolute power they could never have achieved through legitimate democratic processes. He's a fanatic: a truly dreadful man.
Willoughby: Exactly that. The other point is that both Roberts and (from an interview earlier in the month) Amy Barrett are extremely out of touch, or at least their ideological pretenses make them seem that way.
The sub intellectual 6 Republican members of the Roberts court are ALL OUT OF TOUCH! Just look at Kavanaugh’s shadow ruling regarding American citizens swept up in these raids! He is clueless! Either that or “Supremely” stupid!
Claudia Allred: You are right, of course. I doubt anything in my life has been so disappointing as what Americans have experienced in SCOTUS over the last few months. (What a tonic this note was for me.)
Roberts clerked for the ultra-conservative William Rehnquist, who never saw a non-white vote he didn't want to suppress. While in the Reagan administration's DoJ, Roberts worked extensively on tearing holes in the Voting Rights Act. He somehow managed for many years to sell himself as a "moderate" and an "institutionalist."
I guess those could be OK descriptions if by "moderate" one means, "hasn't actually worn a white hood while leading a lynch party" and by "institutionalist" one means "ideologue who seeks a white theocratic oligarchy."
Whatever adjectives you want to use, Roberts is an anti-democratic, shamelessly partisan far-right zealot who has plunged several knives deep into Democracy's back and stood by while his equally extremist theocratic colleagues did the same.
Maybe -- and this is very much an open question -- this country can survive long enough to pull a Congress together that will swiftly and effectively reform SCOTUS and marginalize Roberts. The first step will be to have objectively free and fair elections in Nov '26 despite the many Republican and fascist efforts to prevent that.
Now it’s abundantly clear why Roberts has not enjoined either Alito or Thomas from accepting bribes. Perhaps ProPublica and/or Mother Jones need to do a deep dive into what bribes Roberts has taken over the years.
In his Saturday Morning Coffee Klatch this morning - 9/13 - Robert Reich discusses testifying against Roberts at his nomination hearing and says much the same thing.
Could not agree more. That the Supreme Court has become complicit with trump makes me shudder -- with anger, grief, and shame -- with every instance of it. Who'd a-thunk Americans would come to be embarrassed by one of our most consequential arbiters of justice.
We have the "Robbers' Court" now. Robbing citizens of their rights, their property, their health, and anything else they have that might get in the way of authoritarian rule. We only have JINO -- justice in name only.
Stephen Brady, Consider reading : https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/aug/21/justice-john-roberts-supreme-court This Guardian piece is very detailed on how Roberts grew into the destroyer he is. Of note to me is Judge Luttig (a prior close friend who worked with Roberts' in their 20's in the Reagan Admin.) who said -- "John Roberts knows exactly what he is doing,” Luttig said, “and he knows exactly the message he is sending to America.”
"The age of Gilead" -- I like that! (But no, not what it stands for.) To get it to resonate, perhaps we should call it the Gilead Age, or the Gilded Gilead Age.
He did care for his legacy in the beginning, maybe half of his term so far. He would vote in the interests of corporations consistently but seemed to have better ruling on constitutional. We always heard that he cared about the legacy of the Robert’s Court, but that is gone now.
It is so vital, and I feel so grateful, that Judge Sotomayor stands up for the constitution, for justice, for humane, fair, lawful decisions, which the Supreme Court should exemplarily and commendably stand for. But these six despicable, presumptuous majority justices are destroying the court, its reputation, the constitution — and law and justice. The brazen injustice and arrogance of this corrupt court is heartbreaking, shocking, and outrageous to witness.
You vote, Moreen. Vote against impossible odds. Get other people to vote. And deny the m**herf*ckers the chance to claim your vote is fraudulent. I don't do public demonstrations because I work at a job where being arrested--or even identified--as a "radical" would spell the end of my work. I also travel a lot and need the ability to move through US airports with ease. But I vote, dammit.
WE need more than votes!The voter turn out in the last election was what put this pedophile in office! We need to let them know SC, they are not doing their job in defending the constitution! They are accountable to WE the People! I have been sending readable postcards everyday to the Robert's Court. I want to know what more can be done! Now ! Address 1 First St NE , DC 20543
The Roberts Court brought us Citizens United - the ruling that allowed Musk to spend $250mio to ensure that Trump, Bondi, Vance rule our lives. It is what it is. But I think fair minded observers of the court can agree that term limits would improve things both now and forever. Justices should be forced to retire at the earlier of 30 years on the bench or attaining the age of 80. An enforced ethics code would appear to be needed as well as at least 2 of the courts' members are challenged. Slick moves like McConnell's to prevent Obama from fairly appointing a justice should be out-and-out prohibited. And.... the 9 seats should be expanded to 11 to partially represent our larger population (court last expanded in 1869, when our population was way less than half of what it is currently).
I would opt for term limits and expanding the court to 13 seats, as others have suggested, to match the number of appellate districts (my memory fails me for the correct term there). I agree completely about giving the senate strict rules about handling SCOTUS nominations.
I'd opt for retirement at 75 years of age. Between 75 and 80 is often when signs of cognitive loss begin to become apparent. Or other disease such as Parkinson's which can also involve mental decline. Rather than add to the number of Justices I'd rather see their rules for accepting cases better defined/streamlined, and increase the numbers of the lower federal courts. Imagine the cost of enlarging the Supreme Court building to accommodate new Justices, their clerks, more library space and rest rooms.
Unfortunately, there are no rules of conduct the that the current majority cannot disregard if they wish. That is the emphasis for the term limits and the expansion, to balance out the lifetime appointments of the current MAGA majority.
I'm not sure itw ould be necessary to grandfather the current members in if Congress were to require term limits (which would take a Constitutional Amendment). Thus it may be possible to "retire" Thomas and Alioto at the very least.
when an age limit of 75 was imposed on the Supreme Court of Canada, back in 1927, there was no 'great-grandfather clause', and one of the justices, then 87, had to step down immediately. Sounds like a good practice to follow in SCOTUS.
I keep askin': when will the U.S. Congress file motions of impeachment against them? Add the same charge against the last three, who lied in their confirmation hearings as well.
I agree - but would they actually recuse if so requested? Many thanks to Justice Sotomayor for her clear explanation of the misuse of the "emergency" docket. Trump thinks every case that does not go his way is an "emergency" that requires the Supreme Court to drop all their scheduled cases and let him do what he wants.
Are you confusing two statutes? 28 USC 144 requires an affidavit, but it doesn't apply to SCOTUS justices. 28 USC 455 does apply to SCOTUS justices, but it does not require an affidavit (nor does the SCOTUS code of ethics).
Daniel, do you think that filing a verified document means that an affidavit is required? If so, please let me know why.
Of course, 28 USC 455 is not a procedural rule, and it makes recusal mandatory for SCOTUS justices, not merely for lower court judges. Is there some authority that states that fact-finding is required? SCOTUS precedent says the judge decides whether recusal is required.
Why? You are saying that they can be forced to recuse by a simple piece of paper, but they disregard all the papers so far in favor of what they want to do. What form of affidavit can force them to recuse against their will?
28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Daniel, you're right. 28 U.S.C. 455 is controlling and it says "shall." But I don't see why you think it would require disqualification in any current case.
That is a nice document, and has a lot of good points for a code of conduct. However, all its provisions are shoulds, not shalls, Therefore can be (And are) Ignored if a justice so desires. No consequences.
I’ve seen that particular section of the United States code mentioned before, and yes, it does say shall. But, again, without an enforcement mechanism (Current president and Congress do not enforce laws that they do not Like), Not following that particular law has no current consequence.
Please understand, I like what you’re saying, but until there’s a new president and a new Congress, or a veto proof majority in Congress, it’s just not a thing we can just assert will happen because it won’t. There is no enforcement.
I hope some Democrat is taking down all the violations of that USC statute by SC justices, they will be good reasons to impeach them once the Democrats have the required control of Congress.
Don, you're right. The SCOTUS code of ethics isn't controlling. Federal law is controlling. 28 U.S.C. 455 is controlling and it says "shall." But I don't see why Daniel Solomon thinks it would require disqualification in many cases.
Or better yet, when will a House Democrat file impeachment papers against them. If accepting expensive "gratuities" from billionaires who had, have, or might have in the future, cases before the court that might impact them directly, is not "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" then nothing is!
I think the house down filed impeachment papers against Trump, but got shot down of course. But I don’t know that they’ve filed anything on the Supreme Court.
Not as practical as criminal charges for bribery. Misrepresentation on financial disclosure statements can rise to perjury. May have a statute of limitations problem.
Repeated violations of required financial filings can constitute a felony.
"The six MAGA justices on the Supreme Court have obliterated the notion that they are impartial jurists bound by precedent."
This is what we, and the country are facing. Jennifer and the good Justice have stated the details clearly. When is Congress, and especially the Senate, going to take action against an unconstitutional court? And when are we all going to get fed up with these nonexistent "emergencies"? The major emergency that we do face is the presence of Donald J. Trump and his cabinet of toadies, who should in good conscience have invoked the 25th Amendment.
I wouldn't call it an "unconstitutional court," because the problem is they ARE constitutional--given the lack of boundaries. A different Congress could impeach some of these justices, starting with Thomas and Alito for obvious ethical violations. Then moving on to Roberts for his allowing the shadow docket to be used so profusely, so irresponsibily.
“ When is Congress, and especially the Senate, going to take action against an unconstitutional court?”
Not until Congress ,and especially the Senate I agree, is changed via elections. Current make up of Congress, nothing will happen. The supreme court is behaving exactly as the MAGA Congress wants.
I worry for the safety of Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The six Republican appointed justices have turned, and no longer follow the rule of law and their oath to the Constitution.
So our Supreme Court can now fairly be called the most lawless part of our government. Roberts is remaking our country to resemble the days before the Civil War.
Thank you Justice SOTOMAYOR for being an honest broker! And for the courage to speak and explain your dissent.
Agreed. I certainly do not respect or trust the court at this point. In fact, I am of the point that if you know what you are doing is right and the law is wrong you do not follow the law. That is what citizens in Nazi Germany had to figure out too. I am hoping that Blue States do as well in their soft secession.
Linda, I am afraid you are talking about anarchy. Think about Trump and MAGA following your logic. They have the governement power. We do not.
No Hiro, I am not. I am talking about personal responsibility. Anarchy is the movement against having any government. I am not against government but as a member of a society we still need to have personal responsibility. I am supporting my Blue State government but not this fascist regime. We have the power if we choose to. Right now Blue States have the money. 71% of the US GDP comes from Blue Counties. We should be banding together and have the Democratic States of America. The rest of them are the Fascist States of America.
I agree.
Reforming the extreme court is a necessary aspect of judiciary reform and we cannot do that without a democratic majority. Voting is SO IMPORTANT…local, state and federal. Democracy doesn’t happen sitting on the sidelines.
The current GOP MAGA congress has sworn their fealty to #47 and not to the constitution so there would be absolutely no support for reform. There are a few of the “just-us”s that should actually be impeached, IMHO, for LYING in their hearings regarding precedent and cherry picking the constitution to suit their end goal, which is empowering a unitary executive. It is so blatant that it is nauseating. Congress has given up all power of the purse to the executive branch and the judiciary is complicit. Things MUST change for current and future course correction if we want to continue to live in a democratic society.
Reported that senate changing rules so that they can easily approve incompetent trump toadies to bench who have NO RESPECT for the LAW!
Yes! The administration is complaining that judicial appointments are taking too long so instead of the current procedure of reviewing EACH nominee they want to do BATCH approvals. This is without any input from the democratic side of the aisle. Scary!
Where are the other liberals? Kagan, I’m looking at you. To hell with “judicial courtesy.”
The 3 shared this opinion. 1 writes it.
See my addendum above.
Actually, no one cares about your “addendum.” But admitting a mistake openly can earn you a few brownie points here and there.
What the hell are you talking about?
Time for playing by the rules is over! Time for polite discussion is over and I am no longer sure it ever existed. Fear may or may not be a factor as a result of 47’s hateful, lying speech…dissent clearly is now more risky due to MAGA hate talk and action, but silence cannot be an option.
Jen didn't mention that Justices Kagan and Jackson joined Justice Sotomayor's dissent, but you can see that they did if you click the link that Jen provided and scroll down a few pages to the beginning of the dissent.
See my addendum above.
I was implying by my comment that I'd like to see more than dissenting "opinions." I want to see the three liberals trash the others while on the bench. Embarrass them! Call them treasonous! Walk out!
I hear you. We need more noise from the other two.
Which will accomplish absolutely nothing.
Agree. She and Brown are saying the obvious to those of us who believe that our diverse nation is great because of immigrants...and it seemed improving tolerance for differences...until a soulless evil person made hate OK (with plenty of help from greedy soulless social media companies).
I used to kind of think/hope that Roberts cared about the Court and his legacy. But that is impossible to believe now. He is in there with the rest of the Heritage Foundation wrecking crew - doing their damnedest to destroy The Republic and usher in the age of Gilead.
Roberts began his rise in Republican circles in the 1980s, during his stint in the Reagan DOJ, when he was identified as a genius at twisting the constitution into a balloon animal in order to use the law itself as a weapon against civil rights and labor protections.
He's an ambitious, bloodless partisan, a technocrat, profoundly committed to undoing a century of progressive reform and progress toward democratic governance.
At first, he masked his partisan fervor under a pretense of impartiality--an endeavor in which he enjoyed the support of the Beltway press, which took him at face value and created a bit of a cult around him.
But starting with Citizens United in 2010, the mask began to slip. By now, it's gone altogether; with the press cowed and silenced, Trump in the White House, and a Republican majority in Congress (one he's determined to turn into a permanent majority) he no longer has anything to fear.
He's there to give Republicans (and whites, and Christians, provided they're very, very rich) a degree of absolute power they could never have achieved through legitimate democratic processes. He's a fanatic: a truly dreadful man.
Willoughby: Exactly that. The other point is that both Roberts and (from an interview earlier in the month) Amy Barrett are extremely out of touch, or at least their ideological pretenses make them seem that way.
The sub intellectual 6 Republican members of the Roberts court are ALL OUT OF TOUCH! Just look at Kavanaugh’s shadow ruling regarding American citizens swept up in these raids! He is clueless! Either that or “Supremely” stupid!
Claudia Allred: You are right, of course. I doubt anything in my life has been so disappointing as what Americans have experienced in SCOTUS over the last few months. (What a tonic this note was for me.)
Roberts clerked for the ultra-conservative William Rehnquist, who never saw a non-white vote he didn't want to suppress. While in the Reagan administration's DoJ, Roberts worked extensively on tearing holes in the Voting Rights Act. He somehow managed for many years to sell himself as a "moderate" and an "institutionalist."
I guess those could be OK descriptions if by "moderate" one means, "hasn't actually worn a white hood while leading a lynch party" and by "institutionalist" one means "ideologue who seeks a white theocratic oligarchy."
Whatever adjectives you want to use, Roberts is an anti-democratic, shamelessly partisan far-right zealot who has plunged several knives deep into Democracy's back and stood by while his equally extremist theocratic colleagues did the same.
Maybe -- and this is very much an open question -- this country can survive long enough to pull a Congress together that will swiftly and effectively reform SCOTUS and marginalize Roberts. The first step will be to have objectively free and fair elections in Nov '26 despite the many Republican and fascist efforts to prevent that.
Now it’s abundantly clear why Roberts has not enjoined either Alito or Thomas from accepting bribes. Perhaps ProPublica and/or Mother Jones need to do a deep dive into what bribes Roberts has taken over the years.
A spark of humor in this horrid mess: "twisting the Constitution into a balloon animal"""!!!
Thank you!! I intend to borrow that!
In his Saturday Morning Coffee Klatch this morning - 9/13 - Robert Reich discusses testifying against Roberts at his nomination hearing and says much the same thing.
Could not agree more. That the Supreme Court has become complicit with trump makes me shudder -- with anger, grief, and shame -- with every instance of it. Who'd a-thunk Americans would come to be embarrassed by one of our most consequential arbiters of justice.
We have the "Robbers' Court" now. Robbing citizens of their rights, their property, their health, and anything else they have that might get in the way of authoritarian rule. We only have JINO -- justice in name only.
Stephen Brady, Consider reading : https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/aug/21/justice-john-roberts-supreme-court This Guardian piece is very detailed on how Roberts grew into the destroyer he is. Of note to me is Judge Luttig (a prior close friend who worked with Roberts' in their 20's in the Reagan Admin.) who said -- "John Roberts knows exactly what he is doing,” Luttig said, “and he knows exactly the message he is sending to America.”
I actually have it saved, but I’m afraid it will make me even more depressed.
Sad, but very true.
These are dark days.
"The age of Gilead" -- I like that! (But no, not what it stands for.) To get it to resonate, perhaps we should call it the Gilead Age, or the Gilded Gilead Age.
He did care for his legacy in the beginning, maybe half of his term so far. He would vote in the interests of corporations consistently but seemed to have better ruling on constitutional. We always heard that he cared about the legacy of the Robert’s Court, but that is gone now.
His fanaticism cost him his legacy and any self respect he might once have had.
True that
It is so vital, and I feel so grateful, that Judge Sotomayor stands up for the constitution, for justice, for humane, fair, lawful decisions, which the Supreme Court should exemplarily and commendably stand for. But these six despicable, presumptuous majority justices are destroying the court, its reputation, the constitution — and law and justice. The brazen injustice and arrogance of this corrupt court is heartbreaking, shocking, and outrageous to witness.
Thank you Justice Sotomayor. Now, how do regular citizens go after this conspiratorially based misuse of their positions on the Supreme Court?
You vote, Moreen. Vote against impossible odds. Get other people to vote. And deny the m**herf*ckers the chance to claim your vote is fraudulent. I don't do public demonstrations because I work at a job where being arrested--or even identified--as a "radical" would spell the end of my work. I also travel a lot and need the ability to move through US airports with ease. But I vote, dammit.
WE need more than votes!The voter turn out in the last election was what put this pedophile in office! We need to let them know SC, they are not doing their job in defending the constitution! They are accountable to WE the People! I have been sending readable postcards everyday to the Robert's Court. I want to know what more can be done! Now ! Address 1 First St NE , DC 20543
The Roberts Court brought us Citizens United - the ruling that allowed Musk to spend $250mio to ensure that Trump, Bondi, Vance rule our lives. It is what it is. But I think fair minded observers of the court can agree that term limits would improve things both now and forever. Justices should be forced to retire at the earlier of 30 years on the bench or attaining the age of 80. An enforced ethics code would appear to be needed as well as at least 2 of the courts' members are challenged. Slick moves like McConnell's to prevent Obama from fairly appointing a justice should be out-and-out prohibited. And.... the 9 seats should be expanded to 11 to partially represent our larger population (court last expanded in 1869, when our population was way less than half of what it is currently).
I would opt for term limits and expanding the court to 13 seats, as others have suggested, to match the number of appellate districts (my memory fails me for the correct term there). I agree completely about giving the senate strict rules about handling SCOTUS nominations.
I'd opt for retirement at 75 years of age. Between 75 and 80 is often when signs of cognitive loss begin to become apparent. Or other disease such as Parkinson's which can also involve mental decline. Rather than add to the number of Justices I'd rather see their rules for accepting cases better defined/streamlined, and increase the numbers of the lower federal courts. Imagine the cost of enlarging the Supreme Court building to accommodate new Justices, their clerks, more library space and rest rooms.
Unfortunately, there are no rules of conduct the that the current majority cannot disregard if they wish. That is the emphasis for the term limits and the expansion, to balance out the lifetime appointments of the current MAGA majority.
I'm not sure itw ould be necessary to grandfather the current members in if Congress were to require term limits (which would take a Constitutional Amendment). Thus it may be possible to "retire" Thomas and Alioto at the very least.
when an age limit of 75 was imposed on the Supreme Court of Canada, back in 1927, there was no 'great-grandfather clause', and one of the justices, then 87, had to step down immediately. Sounds like a good practice to follow in SCOTUS.
We have lost the Republicans and the Supreme Court to a dictator.
I keep askin': when will a party file a motion that Thomas and Alito recuse?
I keep askin': when will the U.S. Congress file motions of impeachment against them? Add the same charge against the last three, who lied in their confirmation hearings as well.
When GOP congresspeople grow spines. So far, I see no signs of this.
Concur. That'll be the day...
I agree - but would they actually recuse if so requested? Many thanks to Justice Sotomayor for her clear explanation of the misuse of the "emergency" docket. Trump thinks every case that does not go his way is an "emergency" that requires the Supreme Court to drop all their scheduled cases and let him do what he wants.
I think that with the required affidavit, they might have to.
Are you confusing two statutes? 28 USC 144 requires an affidavit, but it doesn't apply to SCOTUS justices. 28 USC 455 does apply to SCOTUS justices, but it does not require an affidavit (nor does the SCOTUS code of ethics).
Read the code. Need to verify the allegation. Lawyer is on the hook.
Not just operating under 455, which is not a procediural rule. 455 REQUIRES reciusal if there is a viable appearance.
At district court, circuit court, it's mandatory.
Like I said, if it's opposed, requires fact finding.
I I were Thomas' lawyer, I'd tell him not to oppose. BTW, he's recused a couple of times -- even without a motion by a party.
Daniel, do you think that filing a verified document means that an affidavit is required? If so, please let me know why.
Of course, 28 USC 455 is not a procedural rule, and it makes recusal mandatory for SCOTUS justices, not merely for lower court judges. Is there some authority that states that fact-finding is required? SCOTUS precedent says the judge decides whether recusal is required.
Because it protects the movant and creates a factiual issue. When a party represents something not in the record on appeal, has to be verified.
Also about 50 years of experience and having been involved in drafting the proposed rules.
Why? You are saying that they can be forced to recuse by a simple piece of paper, but they disregard all the papers so far in favor of what they want to do. What form of affidavit can force them to recuse against their will?
Read this and get back to us. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf
At a minimum, would require fact finding.
28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Daniel, you're right. 28 U.S.C. 455 is controlling and it says "shall." But I don't see why you think it would require disqualification in any current case.
That is a nice document, and has a lot of good points for a code of conduct. However, all its provisions are shoulds, not shalls, Therefore can be (And are) Ignored if a justice so desires. No consequences.
I’ve seen that particular section of the United States code mentioned before, and yes, it does say shall. But, again, without an enforcement mechanism (Current president and Congress do not enforce laws that they do not Like), Not following that particular law has no current consequence.
Please understand, I like what you’re saying, but until there’s a new president and a new Congress, or a veto proof majority in Congress, it’s just not a thing we can just assert will happen because it won’t. There is no enforcement.
I hope some Democrat is taking down all the violations of that USC statute by SC justices, they will be good reasons to impeach them once the Democrats have the required control of Congress.
Don, you're right. The SCOTUS code of ethics isn't controlling. Federal law is controlling. 28 U.S.C. 455 is controlling and it says "shall." But I don't see why Daniel Solomon thinks it would require disqualification in many cases.
Takes courage to file the affidavit.
Or better yet, when will a House Democrat file impeachment papers against them. If accepting expensive "gratuities" from billionaires who had, have, or might have in the future, cases before the court that might impact them directly, is not "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" then nothing is!
I think the house down filed impeachment papers against Trump, but got shot down of course. But I don’t know that they’ve filed anything on the Supreme Court.
Not as practical as criminal charges for bribery. Misrepresentation on financial disclosure statements can rise to perjury. May have a statute of limitations problem.
Repeated violations of required financial filings can constitute a felony.
I say keep filing! Again & again & again.
Nobody has.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. Blessed is Justice Sotomayor....and our steadfast trumpeter of truth, Jennifer Rubin.
"The six MAGA justices on the Supreme Court have obliterated the notion that they are impartial jurists bound by precedent."
This is what we, and the country are facing. Jennifer and the good Justice have stated the details clearly. When is Congress, and especially the Senate, going to take action against an unconstitutional court? And when are we all going to get fed up with these nonexistent "emergencies"? The major emergency that we do face is the presence of Donald J. Trump and his cabinet of toadies, who should in good conscience have invoked the 25th Amendment.
I wouldn't call it an "unconstitutional court," because the problem is they ARE constitutional--given the lack of boundaries. A different Congress could impeach some of these justices, starting with Thomas and Alito for obvious ethical violations. Then moving on to Roberts for his allowing the shadow docket to be used so profusely, so irresponsibily.
“ When is Congress, and especially the Senate, going to take action against an unconstitutional court?”
Not until Congress ,and especially the Senate I agree, is changed via elections. Current make up of Congress, nothing will happen. The supreme court is behaving exactly as the MAGA Congress wants.
That's why I started calling it the supine court, (no caps intentional).
I worry for the safety of Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The six Republican appointed justices have turned, and no longer follow the rule of law and their oath to the Constitution.
Hmmm ... I wonder how long before Sotomayor is under investigation for mortgage fraud?
I just hope she's safe.
Tears of thanks for Justice Sotomayer.
So our Supreme Court can now fairly be called the most lawless part of our government. Roberts is remaking our country to resemble the days before the Civil War.
Beautifully articulated Jennifer! THANK YOU Justice SOTOMAYOR….🙏
Justice Sotomayor is a national treasure.
Excellent, madam Justice!
You are our strength.