justice breyer weighs in on ethics issue

Don Quixote said:
sub-being yurt, the point that breyer made was that there was no need for laws governing whether a justice should recuse himself that the justices already have a system of self policing
Click to expand...

"sub-being"...what is that?

and you are misrepresenting what he said about the laws for governing ethics.
 
Supreme Being Yurt said:
quite lame btw.....

and this post changes what you claimed earlier.....do try and keep up with your claims.
Click to expand...

lame sub-being yurt :), as i read the article, he says that the justices have books detailing reasons for recusal and relevant ethics and that he and the other justices use them to decide if they should recuse themselves or not

'When he has a question about a case, he said he looks at the code of ethics, reads the statute and then calls an ethics professor for advice.

"All my colleagues try to do the same thing, so I think this is a non-issue," he said.'
 
Don Quixote said:
lame sub-being yurt :), as i read the article, he says that the justices have books detailing reasons for recusal and relevant ethics and that he and the other justices use them to decide if they should recuse themselves or not

'When he has a question about a case, he said he looks at the code of ethics, reads the statute and then calls an ethics professor for advice.

"All my colleagues try to do the same thing, so I think this is a non-issue," he said.'
Click to expand...

don: back this up

there was no need for laws governing whether a justice should recuse himself
 
Don Quixote said:
sub-being yurt, the point that breyer made was that there was no need for laws governing whether a justice should recuse himself that the justices already have a system of self policing
Click to expand...

???....what an extraordinary case if misreading......first of all the SC isn't "self-policing" any more than any judge or lawyer is.....the code of ethics is a body of law that has developed over 200 years of American history and covers all lawyers and judges......there ARE laws and he began his answer by referring to them......thus to claim he said there was no need for laws is particularly stupid......

second, he made the point of saying that judges consider those rules but that SC judges have a particular consideration, because unlike appeals court judges, the case cannot simply be assigned to another court.....there IS no other court.....therefore they have both an obligation to step down and an obligation to remain that must be balanced.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....what an extraordinary case if misreading......first of all the SC isn't "self-policing" any more than any judge or lawyer is.....the code of ethics is a body of law that has developed over 200 years of American history and covers all lawyers and judges......there ARE laws and he began his answer by referring to them......thus to claim he said there was no need for laws is particularly stupid......

second, he made the point of saying that judges consider those rules but that SC judges have a particular consideration, because unlike appeals court judges, the case cannot simply be assigned to another court.....there IS no other court.....therefore they have both an obligation to step down and an obligation to remain that must be balanced.......
Click to expand...

check the constitution regard rules covering the scotus, you will find that the only thing governing the scotus is the requirement that they maintain good behaviour

as for no other court, justices have recused themselves as there are nine justices
 
Don Quixote said:
check the constitution regard rules covering the scotus, you will find that the only thing governing the scotus is the requirement that they maintain good behaviour
Click to expand...
sorry, but no....
http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/CodesOfConduct/CodeConductUnitedStatesJudges.aspx

as for no other court, justices have recused themselves as there are nine justices
Click to expand...

of course they have.....the fact that they have more to consider doesn't mean they don't consider.....did you even read his comment?.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top