Barred and Boujee aka Madiba Dennie: In the Supreme Court's new 'code of conduct,' the justices claim they can’t recuse when they should because there are only nine of them Congress can fix that! ballsandstrikes.org/ethics-accou...

In the Supreme Court's new 'code of conduct,' the justices claim they can’t recuse when they should because there are only nine of them Congress can fix that! ballsandstrikes.org/ethics-accou...

I Have an Idea For Fixing a Supreme Court That’s Too Small to Be Ethicalballsandstrikes.org The justices claim they can’t recuse when they should because there are only nine of them. Congress can fix that!

Crazy idea: They could just not do unethical things.

Among which would of course be recusing themselves when they have the tiniest ethical stain....

Then nobody would buy them RVs and jet them around the world

Serious question: If SCOTUS can't have normal recusal rules because there's only nine of them, does the Court just shut down if, say, one of the Justices has a heart attack or is diagnosed with cancer?

It does not! They make it work, as they did when Republicans kept a seat open for ages after Scalia died

Sadly, that makes perfect sense - I guess those not-gifts from billionaire sugar daddies and all-expenses paid speaking tours don't pay for themselves!

So the post agrees that taking one judge off the case could radically change the outcome of a case, and they come to the conclusion that an ethically compromised justice should STAY on the case?

Fun fact: in Canada, Supreme Court justices recuse all the time. They just twin up with someone else who agrees to recuse also. This avoids ties. Of course, it only works when you have Supreme Court justices who are in good faith.

They also have substantially better robes!

Mall Santas.

I literally assumed this was a some kind of Christmas choir before I actually read any of the posts.

Yeah. He said better.

I bet they apologize profusely when they do it too.

Not all of them are anglos.

Désolé.

Does this mean no justice has ever recused themselves in the history of the Supreme Court?

No. Justice Ketanji Jackson recused herself from the Harvard affirmative action case last term and in 2016 it looks like a whopping 180 times justices recused themselves. Mostly for stock ownership or previous jobs. Mostly when determining if case will be heard. fixthecourt.com/2016/07/ot15...

The Justices Recused Themselves an Astounding 180 Times Last Term - Fix the Courtfixthecourt.com Fix the Court has found that Supreme Court justices recused themselves an astonishing 180 times – 176 times at the cert. stage and four times when a case was granted – during the term that end...

"Your honour, I would like to cite the case of Calling v. Bullshit."

Overheard

It's almost as though a Supreme Court meant to represent 13 Appellate Courts has never had the appropriate number of justices since less means they're easier to corrupt. bsky.app/profile/audr...

In the Supreme Court's new 'code of conduct,' the justices claim they can’t recuse when they should because there are only nine of them Congress can fix that! ballsandstrikes.org/ethics-accou...

I Have an Idea For Fixing a Supreme Court That’s Too Small to Be Ethicalballsandstrikes.org The justices claim they can’t recuse when they should because there are only nine of them. Congress can fix that!

What exactly is the magic number where recusal is fine?

Their argument is an excellent example of the phrase "too clever by half"

feels like we would need at least ten more justices to be safe

I will once again note that America’s Best Court System (Delaware), if a Justice recuses or is unavailable, another judge is picked to sit for that case only.

Wow they usually don't give careful instruction like that

thought for a split second the headline was saying the *idea* was too small to be ethical - need coffee stat

Man they really walked themselves into a rhetorical corner with that one huh

that's the kind of airtight reasoning l've come to expect from this SC

Can and should

They could also issue panel rulings with a larger court, and maybe decide more than 60 of the thousands of cases brought there each year! (Of course, we need a capable, liberal Senate majority first. The partisan/ideological issue can’t be ignored)

Somehow the Courts of Appeal manage to issue rulings with just three judge panels.

They have a large pool to randomly draw panels from. Recusal therefore can’t be gamed by litigants. That’s how.

I remind you that nine is a greater number than three.

Are you under the impression that there’s an appellate circuit with a grand total of three judges?

13 fed districts 13 scotus

The President himself can fix that by executive order. Congress can sit by the side and twiddle their thumbs. Oh, wait. MGT has no opposable thumbs. She might not be the only one.

Recusal is another way of saying I can't do the job. In the days of yore I can't always came in a pair. I can't do the job with I can't work here.

The problem with the Supreme Court is that it exists. #bethepeople

Either that or "fix" Thomas and Alito. Maybe Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett while we're at it.

Post