What do you mean baseless? You’re saying they didn’t get the free stuff?— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) June 22, 2023
The right answer is, the issue never gets to the point of a quid pro quo.
Maybe they shld just follow the rules that apply to everyone else and not accept so much free stuff without at least disclosing it even if there no clear quid pro quos. This is right up there with it’s fine Trump kept the documents because we can’t prove he sold them.— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) June 23, 2023
Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.Strictly speaking, this doesn’t apply to Supreme Court Justices. It should, though. The argument in the canon is sound; and correct. This isn’t about criminal jurisprudence. This is about public confidence in the judicial system.
Yes, but it’s actually worse. Scalia took >6 dozen apparently “comped” undisclosed vacations on theory that “personal hospitality” was created by “personal” invitation, even from someone he’d never met. Many had gun, Republican & fossil fuel folks along. https://t.co/waCDq8zmtV— Sheldon Whitehouse (@SenWhitehouse) June 23, 2023
In 2004, Scalia flew with then-Vice President Dick Cheney for a duck hunting trip at a private camp in Louisiana. A few weeks before, the Supreme Court had voted to hear the vice president’s appeal of a ruling that required the disclosure of energy industry lobbyists who had met with his energy policy task force.
When news of the trip was revealed, Scalia said his stay at the hunting camp involved personal hospitality unrelated to his court work.
And he said he need not step aside from ruling in Cheney’s case.
“I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned,” he said at the time. He later joined a 7-2 ruling that shielded Cheney from disclosing the participants in his energy task force.Justice Scalia was not the arbiter of his actions and their meanings. But no one could tell him that. They can’t tell Justice Scalia that, either. Or Justice Barrett.
If the requirement is proof of quid pro quo, and nothing less, the system will rot into corruption with no cure in sight. That level of proof is higher than the DOJ has to meet to put Trump in jail in Florida. And Trump’s corruption is public; the corruption of the Court is still an iceberg. We can assume there is much more than we see.
'Shady and corrupt': Add Barrett real estate deal to list of Supreme Court ethics scandals https://t.co/cO2r3cspBF— Raw Story (@RawStory) June 23, 2023