The American judicial system is screwed. What irrational circular bullshit logic; a judge is reasonable if they deem themselves so? This is how authoritarianism is born. Rules for thee, but not for me.
@@andym4695 In some areas yes, in other areas I think they did pretty decent. That's the thing, they were human and we should be more willing to update the constitution to adjust for what seems obvious now that wasn't so obvious then. I'm sure back then they felt congress would hold the courts feet to the fire should they act inappropriately.
@@andym4695 Most definitely! They baked in the crazy with _"All men are created equal"..._ while enslaving men (and women). We've never recovered from that core sickness. And all the efforts to address it were like wrapping bandages around a cancer-ridden body.
@@andym4695 To be fair, they had some faith that Americans would of figured it out along the way... And then Americans decided that American law was infallible scripture.
Here in California the Bar rules of conduct are a joke. My lawyer laughed at me when I threatened to report her. She was right to laugh, as these "Rules" are completely unenforceable. I reported four of my Public Defenders who refused to prepare me for my criminal trial, lied to the Judge, and had bench warrants out for my arrest for not showing up to a hearing I knew nothing about. The Judge did not revoke my bail, but did nothing to correct the PDs, and neither did the Bar. I finally won my case without an attorney. It took me SEVEN YEARS to get to trial but my Jury delivered a not guilty plea in twenty minutes. In my seven years of fighting for my freedom I saw every dirty trick both the Prosecution and my own PDs did to block me from trial. I'm a Senior with 25 years of honorable military service and no police record, not even a parking ticket, so I figured they went after me because I'm gay, but I watched this "justice" system grind down everyone who came before them until they finally took a plea. I'm planning to file my complaint against them in Federal court next month. I'm hoping a win will provide grounds for appeal for the many people who just couldn't fight back, along with enough money to make myself whole, once again. I'm now 73. My life was ruined by these sociopaths and I'd like to enjoy the few years I have left in peace.
This is terrible to hear. I hope change happens in your lifetime, even though it probably won’t, not even in mine. It sucks even more knowing things CAN change, but so many of us are ok with the system because of reasons (mostly) out of our control.
@@stevenstrain283 Thank you for taking the time to read my lengthy comment. I did fire the attorney I had hired who laughed at my threats to report her. Then I was given two different Public Defenders whom I also dismissed and went Pro Se for two years until a judge took that privilege away. The next two years I went through four PDs untill a Judge let me go pro se once again. Another two years pushing the Prosecution to fulfill their pretrial requirements regarding witnesses and discovery they intended to present at trial. I demanded my due process rights, and they acted like I was from Mars. The most amazing thing to me was that the cop who arrested me said he saw me try to back over a woman with my truck and he was allowed to perform the duties of Investigating Officer, Primary Witness, Expert Witness, First Responder and was also the Supervisor of all the other responding officers. Of course he used those positions to destroy evidence proving my innocence and to bolster his decision to arrest me. I learned to file motions explaining that situation, and many others I won't go into here, but two different courts, six different judges and at least ten prosecuters ignored everything. I told the jury the cop could not stuff five people into his one pair of shoes and expect any due process to take place. Thank you for your comment and kind words.
@@dulleyes4406 Yes, you are right. So many people are too poor to post bail but if they await trial in jail they will loose ther job, their home and their children, so they MUST take a plea bargsin. Only 2% of criminal defendants ever get a trial. I have no kids, I had money for bail, I'm retired and had the time to fight. I got through the syatem. I feel like the sperm that caught the egg! Thank you for your good wishes.
If I can’t receive gifts or vouchers at my measly $18 an hour job, the Supreme Court Justices shouldn’t be able to go on extravagant all expenses paid trips through theirs. None of these people would make it a week working at any entry level positions that have any kind of standardization or supervision; they’d be fired nearly immediately.
I wonder how "reasonable person" clauses would work in these scenarios... I mean if it's okay for a supreme court judge to accept these "donations" with a clear conflict of interest except it "totally isn't a conflict" then would most reasonable people assume that gifts for themselves under 500,000 are reasonable too? Seems fair to me...
I have stricter ethics codes at my job than the supreme Court or Congress do. I think they absolutely should be there but it's ridiculous that I am held to a higher standard as a low rung assistant than the people literally making decisions about our country.
@@kezia8027you'd think right? My job has exact outlines when a gift is acceptable and reasonable and when it is not. Depending on your position, you could easily get fired if not lose license, certifications and even face federal consequences from the violations.
A college coach cannot buy a sandwich for a recruit, but it's fine for a Supreme Court justice to accept a hundred thousand dollar trip. Yep, that seems right.
My dad was a federal attorney. Our house was between his office and the airport, around 30 minutes from the office and 2 hours from the airport. When the government sent him on a business trip, the rational thing to do would be to take a car from the motor pool home the night before the flight, then drive it to the airport, saving an hour of driving in the morning. Instead, he had to drive to the office the morning of the flight, get the government car, then drive right back past our house on the way to the airport because government ethics rules required that he not even *appear* to be acting improperly. They didn't want someone to see the government plates on a car parked overnight at a private residence because federal employees aren't supposed to use government assets for personal use. If he'd neglected to do this, they'd have fired him. So it's particularly galling that SCOTUS doesn't have to worry about any level of ethical compliance.
How are you going to enforce a Federal Ethics Code? Impeachment? Drafting the Articles is one thing but convincing their Senators of their Political Party to Remove them from Office is Nearly Impossible, especially when they will be replaced by the opposing party. Lots of Luck with that
We're being gaslit by the highest court in the land. The word "misunderstanding" is squarely understood to mean, "you seem to think our actions are inappropriate, but you're wrong." Wow.
@@WillowT442 oh HELL no! anything but THAT! (edit bc i realised that this being intended as a gag about living in the worst timeline is probably not 100% clear)
I suspect that for people who revere wealth/power, then it's as much about basking in the light of a billionaire's as it is the monetary value of whatever gifts they bestow.
Thomas in particular is a disapointment. As a black man, I expected him to act as America's contience, but nope he's just in it for his own piece of pie. You too Soto Mayor. Et. al.
🤣 You mean getting the crooks to monitor the crooks? The laws are already written as noted, but there is NO ONE in DC who wants the gravy train stop... get it?
Self-judgment on whether or not to recuse one's self, should not be decided by the individual. It should be decided by an independent board. Self praise is no recommendation!
This stinks to high heaven. When one is at the very top of a high standing appointed position. You are supposed to be held even more accountable than those below you. I learned this in the military... One should be above reproach. The stupidity of how long this has gone on without any question. Also the solution is lax and crap as well.
This 💯 Especially when their case gives precedence to all the lower courts and public trust in the entire system relies on their integrity. How's anyone supposed to trust the hand of law at all if they're taking millionaire vacations for free with their plaintiffs?
@@CrescentUmbreon Yes, the same document which has been copied literally word-for-word for other nations to use as their own constitution. The same document which was so perfectly written that after 234 years, has only been altered 27 times. Please show me where the "intentionally ill-defined" is. The people who wrote it knew what a woman was. At least one person tasked with interpreting it does not. I think we're the problem, not the document. Americans are the dumbest people on Earth. We have the lowest quality of education of just about any 1st World nation and it's only getting worse. 20% of Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows.
Since the Constitution allows Justices to remain in office "during good behavior," couldn't Congress write an ethics code that is essentially just defining the legal meaning of "good behavior?"
@@leobigelow7021 i don't follow. Dred Scott was overturned de facto by constitutional amendment (13th and 14th). does Congress have the authority to dictate SCOTUS behavior? that's the constitutional question that would be raised.
@@mikey-wl2jt If the SC defines good behavior leniently, that wouldn't just affect them, it would be how every law using that term is to be interpreted.
This sham "Code of Ethics" is a clear statement from the Supreme Court that they believe themselves to be above the law, if not the embodiment of the law itself. It say -- in many more words -- that they will accept no regulations or oversight upon their own actions as they believe themselves to be the ultimate arbiter of all matters, both legal and ethical. The Supreme Court is a mistake in execution, even if it is fine in concept. Like so many other systems of our government, it needs to be reformed immediately.
I don't even consider them people anymore. My personal favorite descriptor is "subhelminthic". Technically not an established word, but it means "below parasitic worms."
Hey, conservatives did you notice how Leeja read off the conflicts of interest and shady behavior of the conservative justices *AND* the liberal justices? That's what honesty and integrity looks like. I realize that you don't get to see many examples on your side of the aisle so I wanted to point this example out for your edification.
yep was VERY glad to see RBG on the list. Especially with how popular she was with the "public left" because while I understand why someone would be inclined to do what she did, it without a doubt does violate conflict of interest. I agree with what she did, and with the system the way it is, I'm not sure that her doing it caused a negative outcome, but this is why the system itself is broken. If R's can break the rules and get away with it, the only way to level the playing field is for D's to break the rules too - and at that point, no one is following the rules, and they're now completely worthless...
I love it when they try to say "IF IT WAS A LIBERAL, YOU WOULD LET IT SLIDE", but no, we really wouldn't. Our political "leaders" are civil SERVANTS, not commanders and kings. They should be treated just like everyone else.
@@JayBee-cr8jmWe need someone who ain't some rich person trying to entrench the status quo, marginalized people are statistically more likely to fit this bill because of their marginalization.
@@joaquinvideo2959 What will that change? The constitution says exactly what it says. The words are the same if a Jew reads it, a tall person reads it, a tall Jew reads it or a poor gay black man reads it.
As an Australian I am terrified, because history has shown me that we will follow suit in most avenues that the US enforces, and given the recent blow to democracy of silencing and punishing whistleblowers of literal actual war crimes, we seem to be catching up in terms of a lack of accountability. Truly terrifying, and I truly don't believe that there is any way the system can be repaired. At this stage the whole thing is rotten to the core and needs to be completely dismantled and built from the ground up.
This is eye-opening: as a U.S. American, I have always considered Australia superior to this country because despite having a lot of the same ugly origin story (thanks Britain!) it seems to have a more robust respect for the rule of law and popular sovereignty. But your comments are making me think this is really not the case :-(
@@blackeyedsusan727 yeah it is a persona that many australians (esp gov) would love for the rest of the world to see - that' we're just a bunch of 'happy go lucky larakins' but there is a non stop history of human rights abuses from the moment this country was 'founded' till now. There are people who are literally legal asylum seekers who have been kept in indefinite detention offshore for over 5 years in conditions that are literally inhumane. Just recently the Australian Gov has essentially condoned and has made it much easier to cover up LITERAL war crimes by one of the most depraved, disgusting individuals on the planet. He was completely protected by this government and the whistleblower has had his life destroyed and has no recourse. Oh and the gov decided that he didn't get a fair trial because it was a matter of national security. The number of heinous despicable democracy destroying actions taken by the entire Aus gov over decades is truly reprehensible. Honestly Australia is not a good place to live. Every day I become more and more ashamed to call myself Australian thanks to the depraved individuals "running" this country. I would rather live here than the US, but the gap is getting smaller and smaller every day.
@@shadowsonicsilver6 I very much will blame Australia. Australians are selfish, immoral assholes who don't think about people other than themselves when they vote. That's why we've had a decade of the liberal party and how the liberal party has managed to keep a stranglehold on Australian politics. I've been exposed to the same Murdoch shit as everyone else, I've just actually bothered to be critical of the media I consume, unlike the majority of this forsaken country. Murdoch is an easy out so people don't have to take responsibility for their own actions or critical thinking. Really, they're just selfish and don't want to consider viewpoints other than their own. Fuckin Queensland
Sometimes they are made to. Sometimes they're neither made to nor merely appear to do the right thing, but are doing the right thing freely because it happens to be the thing they'd be doing anyway. And sometimes, there's some internal psychological connection between why they do it and it being the right thing, but the rest of us are just stupid-lucky on such occasions.
The highest, most powerful positions, requiring the utmost responsibility.... CANNOT have the lowest standards. Toothless ethical "suggestions" mean nothing. To resist or obstruct fair, and necessary ethical changes in judicial regulation, in parity with existing rules for lower justices, is a bold red flag. Entitled, Priveleged and Tone Deaf. Hard boundaries and finite penalties are required for one of the highest positions in America. Any honest judge would embrace the changes.
I watched a video on Legal Eagle a couple of months ago where a lawyer was looking at disbarment because he used A.I. to generate legal precedence and it made a hash of the entire thing. I don't disagree with the potential fate of that person because they were too lazy to review the information before handing it in hence they deserve what they get. It would appear that with this new Supreme Court code it will become a case of not getting what they deserve and that proves further that justice isn't blind, it's insane !!
This actually makes me think we don't have enough Justices. If we had enough that we could have rotating SCOTUS panels, there would be less pressure not to recuse when required. I think the SCOTUS needs to be rethought, which would be an interesting project in a polarized country. But if we could establish a consensus, it would be a good thing, to put it lightly.
So, I knew the state of the Supreme Court was bad, but I had admittedly not looked too deeply into how bad it was. Wow, it's bad, but hey, good news! It's bipartisan. Good lord, they all have to go.
@@nyxskids oh yeah no I definitely understand, but I'd argue they're actively not bipartisan, because that implies that they do have actual ties to either party. I would argue they are in their own party separate from Dems or republicans because they are quite literally above the law, so to say that they are one or the other doesn't really apply in the same way that it would for the average person. Republicans are in the SCOTUS party, SCOTUS isn't in the Republican party. This "ethics" of theirs really just cements that they are not a part of the same system as the rest of us. They view themselves as above and outside the system, and even the biggest Democrat or republican is still within the system.
@@kezia8027 Both parties are corrupt, because both parties are, at their core, parties of neoliberal power. They put different faces on it and have some different stances on some social issues, but they're both corrupt neoliberals in it for the power.
It breaks my heart to see how bad things have gotten in America. Usually knowledge is power, but the more I learn the more hopeless I feel. It seems like everything from the ground up is so corruptly intermingled that you can’t solve one problem at a time without pulling the string into a massive knot. My wife is a doctor. After she pays her student loans off, we can emigrate to any country we want. It’s scary to think about leaving our friends and family behind. But when we look at our boys’ futures, what does that look like in America? More wealth inequality, more poverty, more violence, more ignorance, more lunacy, more corruption. Why would we choose to raise our boys here and let them loose into a crumbling country? I don’t have hope left for America.
Thank you, Leeja. This is really bad and not much hope in sight. Only two ways of helping the situation come to mind: 1. Congress must legislate a code of ethics with an actual stake of removal from the office. Both those parts are unlikely: The two-thirds majority Senate actually wanting to take on the court, while it's currently working quite as intended for one side, and even more so the actual teeth, which would be necessary. If justices can stay and enjoy the benefits, at most getting reprimanded, why wouldn't they? 2. Greatly increased public interest and scrutiny. This could more easily happen as the impact of the courts' decisions ever increases, but likely still not quickly enough, unfortunately. It's the idea, that shame is powerful, which is becoming more and more of a cultural relic. It would have to be *multiplied* public interest and even then the remedy is soft punishment through loss of standing and respect, not hard consequences. Still, I'd consider it to be the more likely of the two to be promising, for now. (3. A change in the court's ideological makeup to again be more balanced and unpredictable. I'm speaking of retirements and new appointments. This could make the prospect of the court making increasingly political and impactful decisions unattractive to both parties again: too high risk. Then they might want to reign them in, but I don't see this as particularly likely either, judging from the past)
A very thorough and informative video. Thank you for not pulling punches on the more liberal justices. I already knew about the conservative justices. I appreciate having a more complete picture.
The fact we are having a debate about ethics at the Supreme Court is representative of how deeply damaged our nation is. Ethics in our nations highest court is unequivocally beyond reproach- period. 'Shouldn't' is not an option.
Honestly it'd be better to have no official court. Anytime a case need be reviewed at the highest level, convene judges who have experience in that area of law selected by legal scholars.
I lost my personal regard for the Supreme Court during the appointment hearings for Clarence Thomas and never again considered gaining it back. I wonder why? I am pretty sure his appointment was a political payoff instigated by Monsanto who had him on their legal staff, then he was a judge who ruled in their favor and finally he was appointed to the Supreme Court. The last straw was the ridiculous treatment of Anita Hill in those appointment hearings in order to get him appointed to the Court. Not surprised that he, and many who have come after, lack ethics.
It can't substantially apply to non-lawyers, but it should certainly establish that it is a damn good idea for other people, who are _even less_ able to supply appropriate legal advice, to be clear about that. How the rest of us go about requiring people take up damn good ideas is on the rest of us.
We couldn’t possibly understand their pure, unbiased practices of not recusing themselves from conflicts of interest and accepting millions of dollars in “gifts.” Not with our puny little brains.
"Yes this is why we can't have heroes" Gives the same energy as, "Don't meet your heroes." I hope if I ever become anyone's hero I can try to be a good enough person that they don't feel like my work or messages are a lie. Edit: fixed typos
Thank you, as ever, for your work here. Usually I watch your vids about an hour after they come out, but today I had an obligation and was watching it quite late with a cocktail in hand - and I'm glad. This was a rough one - not as a video (top notch as always!) but due to the content. Although let's be real: things have been quite grim of late. I suppose that's why I'm so grateful to have a legal scholar such as yourself to walk us through the things that are a bit above my paygrade that I didn't specialize in. At any rate - you're doing beautiful work. Thank you again, very sincerely
@@JayBee-cr8jm The corruption that allows lobbying, gerrymandering, passing controversial legislation in a rush at 2:35 AM while the majority of the country is sleeping etc etc.
America was always a civil oligarchy. At least now it's not even trying to hide it. What I don't understand is why I'm the only one who seems to know this.
Question, in that rhetorical and sarcastic sort of way: Is there not a case brought about by the class of people Thomas and Alito have taken 'gifts' from... will they recuse themselves? So much for the code they just finished writing, the ink wasn't even dry!
Dear Leeja: I am a HUGE fan of all of your videos. For context, I am a 72 year old white guy, Gay & proud FDR Democrat living in NW FL who thinks you are one of THE BEST content providers & influencers on TH-cam. I appreciate all of your videos. This one has me so upset, I had to pause it at the 15 minute mark. Nonetheless, please keep up the good work. 💙
Why doesn’t a lawyer presenting a case before the Supreme Court object to a judge presiding if he or she has a conflict of interest and what’s more, detail that conflict to the court and if necessary to the media?
What can actually be done about this to correct this issue? Some of these folks need to be removed from the court. They have violated the trust of the people.
*cough* didn't you guys have a 2nd amendment for a reason? *cough* (no I do not advocate violence, but like legitimately, is this exact situation not what it was implemented for?)
@@bennyv4444 oh I don't think it would be a good idea or useful... But like isn't this exact situation literally the only reason the amendment exists at all?? Explicitly to be able to defend yourselves against an unjust government? Or have I as an Australian misunderstood the purpose of the second amendment (which is totally possible too)
@@kezia8027 Yeah that is a popular but not exactly correct understanding that a lot of American Conservatives have. The justification for violence against the government that they claim to see in the second amendment is in fact in the American tradition, from our founding through violence, and the many revolutionary writings of the founding fathers. All of that revolutionary tradition is inherently violent, and it tends to be expressed vaguely in American political history through discourse about the second amendment and states rights. The actual historical purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that each individual state would be allowed to maintain its own military force, because federalism and subsidiarity were kinda the obsession of the southern colony’s representatives at the constitutional convention.
@@bennyv4444 can't say I'm surprised it isn't quite as simple as people make it out to be. So in (overly) simple terms it is saying that each STATE has the right to their own armed military force rather than individual citizens having the right to being armed? Ie. would that mean that this is actually almost endorsing the civil war? Like that the south had a right to defend themselves against s government they saw as unfit/unjust, and that they had the right to forcefully defend their "freedom" (to own slaves)?
so now that youve explained the ethics associated with public office does anyone with a pulse not currently living in a cave believe that there is a senator. president, governor, or other powerful/insulated member of US govent that ISNT violating the spirit of that code? Id be amazed if we could find one.
Stop obeying their rulings. That's what I'm doing. I'm also putting all my taxes in an offshore account until the country can return to sanity, at which point they'll be welcome to it.
Thank you for this video. I also have always wondered why the Supreme Court’s ethics requirements are so lax compared to the independence standards we CPA’s must adhere to.
All that will do is create a headache for some unfortunate aide somewhere way down the chain in the justice department. It’s not even likely that the person will be directly connected to Clarence. Probs just some public servant
Am I the only one concerned that the highest judges in the nation are even relatively interested in doing things like writing books or giving speeches for money? They make over a quarter mil a year... And they need more money? Really? Am I the only one skeptical of letting people interested in making more money be supreme judges - especially when people with a lot of money are frequently under their authority? I don't think it's wise to put anyone interested in making more money than necessary into public office.
@@elsie412ok they are all so corrupt!! Do not like any of them - republicans want to control women like Hitler did . And Biden does not say anything to the red state women & LGBTQ communities! He appears useless
my favourite Leeja line "I am a lawyer, but i'm not YOUR lawyer." We get this all the time as accountants too "ughhh, no I can't get you out of paying taxes, I'm an accountant, not a magician!"
Tangential - re "not your lawyer, this is not legal advice" - Lawyers on social media do apparently often aspire to provide popular layperson legal education so we're less clueless out there. I take it there is a difference between this and reckless legal advice outside the conditions the codes reasonably require. Just what ARE those differences though?
Medical professionals with a social media presence have the same disclaimer for the same reason, it's just a reminder that people should take something someone says with a grain of salt and form their own informed conclusion. Both medlife crisis mama Dr Jones and chubbyemu do this iirc
A few judges realized their indoor pool gets cold in the winter, so they need the extra manipulation of law to support their power-trips. Just a guess.
What sucks is I'm sure the founding fathers never figured in how bad corruption in government and in the judicial system would get. That's pretty bad, thinking our founding fathers could never imagine how corrupt and dishonest the system they thought up could actually be.
amy coney barrett, at the 'mcconnel center' at Louisville, standing next to 'mitch mcconnel', while talking about 'keeping politics out of the judiciary' -- is breathtaking and it brings up 2 bigger related issues. first, the conservative mind is truly breathtaking. ive studied the political economy for about 15 years now and still, it never ceases to amaze me whenever i come across right-wing, conservative thoughts/arguments/etc... i mean liberals are conservative no doubt. but when we talk about the American "right" its just awe-inspiring... second, when it comes to official positions like supreme court justices, unelected people granted amazing amounts of power and tasked to do things requiring deep understanding, and vast amounts of knowledge on a large breadth of topics, there is an amount of qualification that should be (and is claimed to be) present amongst candidates. in this case, with barrett, shouldnt an action like that mentioned earlier - at mcconel, next to mcconnel, while proclaiming the virtue and necessity of keeping politics out of the judiciary - be disqualifying? not saying anyone would hold anyone accountable but in the court of public opinion, actions like barrett's here are so ridiculous it should warrant all the evidence you need to realize barrett's intellectual ability, that it is non-existent, and therefore disqualifying? i know im wordy and i run on and on but one more question.... is it really possible that people can look at 'at mcconnel, next to mcconnel, while claiming NO POLITICS!', and not conclude the incredible absurdity and hypocrisy? regardless, i leave you with these facts: "everything is political" and "you cant be neutral on a moving train" (there is no such thing as beting 'unbiased' or 'objective')
I'm a conservative. Bring it. One of our most basic beliefs is limited government. What you propose is gutting the whole idea of an independent judiciary (while pretending otherwise) and making the Supreme Court just another arm of whatever political party is in power. In other words, Argentina. Please, Mr. Astonished-at-the-Conservative-Mind, tell us all, specifically, what would happen if Supreme Court justices were able to be "disqualified". Hint: slavery would still be legal.
But objectivity can be held as the ideal and holding oneself accountable by recognizing one's inherent biases is possible. Myopia is not preordained for us all.
@@leobigelow7021 your argument for "limited government" and an "independent judiciary" void or detached from "politics" is a fairy tale that does not and cannot exist. you are completely ignoring the history and reality of the judiciary, justices and courts -- the Supreme Court and judiciary already are political institutions, through and through. it is impossible for justices to be apolitical and claims of "independence" based on life time terms, their unelected nature as legislative appointees, and related only make justices "independent" from accountability, NOT politics. consider that justices are middle-aged and older. are we to believe that in the 45+ years they have been alive they have developed no preferences or world views as to how society operates and is structured? more importantly, are we to assume that all justices are created equal and are basically computational machines blanked of ideology? if that is so then why do Republicans favor certain candidates over others and vice versa with Democrats? the answer. because the courts are not only political, they are the enforcing wing of all politics. and all of this is said without even mentioning all of the recent reports of corruption on the bench - eg clarence thomas and his billionaire right-wing daddy. so no. you are wrong. i do not propose gutting an "independent" judiciary and making it an arm of "whatever political party is in power" - thats already how it is. its already been gutted and enlisted as an arm of political power - back in 1776. and, while i appreciate you accusation of bad faith - "while pretending otherwise" - i assure you i do not pretend and what you are mistaking for bad faith is rather just your willful ignorance for assessing the court as it actually exists and assessing those concepts and tall claims like "limited government" and "independent judiciary" for actual feasibility/desirability or even whether such things can even exist in the first place... so as to not mince words or pretend any further, heres the answer to your question, "what would happen if the Supreme Court justices were able to be 'disqualified'?" (and a word on "slavery would still be legal") what would happen depends on the mechanism that would make it happen. suppose supreme court justices were answerable to the people directly, as other political offices are, through general elections held periodically or when special circumstances arise. if judges weren't appointed for life and instead had to be reelected each term, however long that may be, they would be tightly bound to the will of the people, and should they not carry out their duties, find themselves ousted. "but the judiciary would then be at the whims of the People instead of the law?" i hear you cry. well, the people already dictate what laws are made and how they are enforced through legislative and executive elected representatives (at least in theory), so it follows that the People themselves should be the check on whether or not the judiciary correctly interprets the will of the People. after all, the laws and how they enforced are based on the will and desires of the People right? then it is that same source that should decide whether or not their chosen rules for governance are being interpreted as they wish. in this way, the People are the great up-holders of the law, not a body that undermines or ignores it... said another way, the lawmakers create laws desired by the People, so why then, would the People work to undermine or disempower the rule of law? they wouldnt but you know who might? unelected supreme court justices who have no exposure to the will of the People. so, no, the People are not the risk to dismantle the rule of law, insead, as we have now, the real threat and active attacker of our systems of governance is private power through the judiciary as it is the one branch shielded from public action. if justices could be disqualified, those who do not carry out the People's will - correctly interpreting the People's laws as the People originally intended them - would correctly be relieved of their duty and power. finally, to address your weird "slavery would still be legal" assertion... if the people didnt force the supreme court and governing bodies to outlaw slavery, it would still be legal today. you have it backward. its not the supreme court that acted to outlaw slavery, it was the people who forced the governing bodies to their will. but leaving that aside take the framework i have laid out above. the People, through the abolishionists movement and other progressive social organizing and actions, widely supported the ending of slavery and did so for quite a long time before the powers that be did anything about it. if we had my system in place those people could have ousted justices and legislators not making/interpreting the laws as desired - outlawing slavery. it would only be until the next term before a large enough and popular enough movement would have been able to get into positions of power people who would carry out that will. however, under your system, we might have had to wait an entire lifetime....!!!! which is exactly what we did and is exactly what we do over and over and over again in this country. the Supreme Court justices have a long and ubiquitous history of up-holding at all times the desires of concentrated power against the will of the People. the Court isn't just political it is THE political weapon of the anti-democratic anti-social authoritarian ruling class minority. as such it is extremely biased in favor of the "status-quo", which conservatives like you pretend means "unbiased". but like most everything else, pretend is all conservatives do...
@@dionmcgee5610 what you are talking about is honesty not objectivity. here ill elaborate a little. for starters, what does "objectivity" even mean? maybe something like, "drawing conclusions solely based on relevant facts and information?" but who determines what is "relevant"? it requires having a pre-constructed model for the problem's domain. this is a problem especially with topics of social significance where it is impossible to know exactly how society works. subjects like history and the political economy, two of which demands for "objectivity" are loudest, are the most frequent violators of "objectivity" whilst claiming their "unbiassedness". by approaching things "objectively", you say discovering your inherent biases is possible. this is false. bias is the thing that effects your judgment without your knowledge. this is when claiming "objectivity" gets dangerous. your real biases, the ones you do not recognize, influence how you go about your life. when you claim your judgment on some issue is "objective" you hide information about those internal unknown biases from your audience. in the worst case, for those who do not know better, they will believe your work is the absolute truth and therefore accept it without question. this is where ideological insanity comes from and is why propaganda is so effective - claims of the "objective" on pieces constructed precisely to appeal to a target audience, the combination of appealing to their worldview while claiming objectivity poisons them. have no fear though! there is a solution! state up front your beliefs and what you are attempting to convey in your message. for instance, something like: i am on the political Left and have zero trust for power and hierarchies. my goals are to describe my view of the topic from the perspective of the People, as opposed to the powerful or wealthy. of course i have not intentionally left anything out of my narrative intentionally and have done work to try and include oppositional data and information. with that said, be skeptical about everything i say and lookup my claims and sources for yourself as much as possible...
I'm starting to want to become a supreme court justice just so I can flagrantly announce that I am willing to vote on a ruling based on what the highest bidder requests from a private auction. I of course won't follow through with it, but I will publicly announce it and claim that it is perfectly legal, the only difference between what I am doing and the other justices is that I am doing it publicly.
Yes, let’s let congress decide on which “ethics” the supreme court should follow. After all, they do such a great job policing themselves. Insider trading for all!
Thanks Leeja. Excellent as always. As a long-practicing attorney it is appalling to see the level of disregard that the highest court’s justices have for their ethical conduct and for the concept of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. The consequential erosion of confidence in the judiciary threatens the basis of our democracy - that we are governed by the rule of law and that no one is above the law, notwithstanding the fact that it is aspirational and a concept that has never been fully realized. Keep on shining a light on these threats. Maybe enough people will wake up to them before it’s too late.
Fear is definitly not the only thing to make people act ethically. Jail/prison are supposed to put fear into people to obey laws & act as a deterrent & yet the USA has one of the highest population behind bars so idk how well that idea holds up, y'know? That being said..... they could use a little fear lol ...but they're clearly above the law and arent held accountable so why should they? It's all kinds of fucked.
Use code LEEJA50 to get 50% off your first Factor box at bit.ly/3lJJNlZ !
nt
SO SCOTUS basically established a code of ethics that, in essence, says "fugg you we're the Supremes. We sing a tune but don't have to dance to it."
The American judicial system is screwed. What irrational circular bullshit logic; a judge is reasonable if they deem themselves so? This is how authoritarianism is born. Rules for thee, but not for me.
Your hair looks grreat!!! .. glad you ditched those cindy brady bangs❤❤❤❤
Surprised you haven't gotten a sponsorship from Legal Shield.
The current Supreme Court reminds me strongly of two bishops absolving each other of the sins they enthusiastically commit.
What's worse is they probably think of themselves as religious leaders.
That would make an excellent romance book
@@thatperson278 a book titled "Chased to the end by God, Sayved by a kid loving brother of Faith"
@@thatperson278 Definitely a tragedy. Orgasms bring inhibitions to the fore, so exquisite pleasure and intense shame meld into your hypothetical book.
Yeah... Except that's actually a defrockable offense in the catholic church
It's insane that we allow the Supreme Court to define its own ethics code. It's like letting criminals decide what's criminal. 😞
I think the Founding Fathers displayed some interesting and remarkable lack of insight in some areas.
@@andym4695 In some areas yes, in other areas I think they did pretty decent. That's the thing, they were human and we should be more willing to update the constitution to adjust for what seems obvious now that wasn't so obvious then. I'm sure back then they felt congress would hold the courts feet to the fire should they act inappropriately.
@@andym4695 Most definitely! They baked in the crazy with _"All men are created equal"..._ while enslaving men (and women). We've never recovered from that core sickness. And all the efforts to address it were like wrapping bandages around a cancer-ridden body.
@@Merdock19Agreed. The founders most important belief was that these laws and ways of functioning for our government need to be malleable to society
@@andym4695 To be fair, they had some faith that Americans would of figured it out along the way... And then Americans decided that American law was infallible scripture.
Here in California the Bar rules of conduct are a joke. My lawyer laughed at me when I threatened to report her. She was right to laugh, as these "Rules" are completely unenforceable.
I reported four of my Public Defenders who refused to prepare me for my criminal trial, lied to the Judge, and had bench warrants out for my arrest for not showing up to a hearing I knew nothing about. The Judge did not revoke my bail, but did nothing to correct the PDs, and neither did the Bar.
I finally won my case without an attorney. It took me SEVEN YEARS to get to trial but my Jury delivered a not guilty plea in twenty minutes.
In my seven years of fighting for my freedom I saw every dirty trick both the Prosecution and my own PDs did to block me from trial. I'm a Senior with 25 years of honorable military service and no police record, not even a parking ticket, so I figured they went after me because I'm gay, but I watched this "justice" system grind down everyone who came before them until they finally took a plea.
I'm planning to file my complaint against them in Federal court next month. I'm hoping a win will provide grounds for appeal for the many people who just couldn't fight back, along with enough money to make myself whole, once again. I'm now 73. My life was ruined by these sociopaths and I'd like to enjoy the few years I have left in peace.
This is terrible to hear. I hope change happens in your lifetime, even though it probably won’t, not even in mine. It sucks even more knowing things CAN change, but so many of us are ok with the system because of reasons (mostly) out of our control.
Best of luck to you, seriously. And I hope you keep us all posted.
@@stevenstrain283 Thank you for taking the time to read my lengthy comment. I did fire the attorney I had hired who laughed at my threats to report her. Then I was given two different Public Defenders whom I also dismissed and went Pro Se for two years until a judge took that privilege away. The next two years I went through four PDs untill a Judge let me go pro se once again. Another two years pushing the Prosecution to fulfill their pretrial requirements regarding witnesses and discovery they intended to present at trial. I demanded my due process rights, and they acted like I was from Mars.
The most amazing thing to me was that the cop who arrested me said he saw me try to back over a woman with my truck and he was allowed to perform the duties of Investigating Officer, Primary Witness, Expert Witness, First Responder and was also the Supervisor of all the other responding officers. Of course he used those positions to destroy evidence proving my innocence and to bolster his decision to arrest me.
I learned to file motions explaining that situation, and many others I won't go into here, but two different courts, six different judges and at least ten prosecuters ignored everything.
I told the jury the cop could not stuff five people into his one pair of shoes and expect any due process to take place.
Thank you for your comment and kind words.
@@dulleyes4406 Yes, you are right. So many people are too poor to post bail but if they await trial in jail they will loose ther job, their home and their children, so they MUST take a plea bargsin. Only 2% of criminal defendants ever get a trial. I have no kids, I had money for bail, I'm retired and had the time to fight. I got through the syatem. I feel like the sperm that caught the egg! Thank you for your good wishes.
@@RevShifty Thank you, and I will!
If I can’t receive gifts or vouchers at my measly $18 an hour job, the Supreme Court Justices shouldn’t be able to go on extravagant all expenses paid trips through theirs. None of these people would make it a week working at any entry level positions that have any kind of standardization or supervision; they’d be fired nearly immediately.
I wonder how "reasonable person" clauses would work in these scenarios... I mean if it's okay for a supreme court judge to accept these "donations" with a clear conflict of interest except it "totally isn't a conflict" then would most reasonable people assume that gifts for themselves under 500,000 are reasonable too? Seems fair to me...
I have stricter ethics codes at my job than the supreme Court or Congress do. I think they absolutely should be there but it's ridiculous that I am held to a higher standard as a low rung assistant than the people literally making decisions about our country.
@@kezia8027you'd think right? My job has exact outlines when a gift is acceptable and reasonable and when it is not. Depending on your position, you could easily get fired if not lose license, certifications and even face federal consequences from the violations.
A college coach cannot buy a sandwich for a recruit, but it's fine for a Supreme Court justice to accept a hundred thousand dollar trip. Yep, that seems right.
The supreme Court cannot be enforced to a code of ethics. It would give another branch too much power.
My dad was a federal attorney. Our house was between his office and the airport, around 30 minutes from the office and 2 hours from the airport. When the government sent him on a business trip, the rational thing to do would be to take a car from the motor pool home the night before the flight, then drive it to the airport, saving an hour of driving in the morning. Instead, he had to drive to the office the morning of the flight, get the government car, then drive right back past our house on the way to the airport because government ethics rules required that he not even *appear* to be acting improperly. They didn't want someone to see the government plates on a car parked overnight at a private residence because federal employees aren't supposed to use government assets for personal use. If he'd neglected to do this, they'd have fired him. So it's particularly galling that SCOTUS doesn't have to worry about any level of ethical compliance.
Nothing like introducing an Ethics code with no way of enforcing it
Even if they define enforcement, they'll write it in ways to let them wiggle out based on interpretation.
Federal government does this often.
How are you going to enforce a Federal Ethics Code? Impeachment?
Drafting the Articles is one thing but convincing their Senators of their Political Party to Remove them from Office is Nearly Impossible, especially when they will be replaced by the opposing party. Lots of Luck with that
@@Mike-rs1svYou could start with fines, no reason to go right to removal
@@tomlxyzwhat, with the condition of a $10 cap?
We're being gaslit by the highest court in the land. The word "misunderstanding" is squarely understood to mean, "you seem to think our actions are inappropriate, but you're wrong." Wow.
🇺🇲⌚️
Just what I was thinking. Obviously they think we’re all stupid and don’t know the meaning of words.
The goverment is relying on doublespeak.
What fresh new dystopian horrors does our legal queen have to bring to us today?
The ones that get more and more baked in as oligarchs impose their will upon us.
Our reality!
@@WillowT442 oh HELL no! anything but THAT!
(edit bc i realised that this being intended as a gag about living in the worst timeline is probably not 100% clear)
What's most insane is how little money they need to get to be influenced. If you're a billionaire you're not even feeling this "expense"
I suspect that for people who revere wealth/power, then it's as much about basking in the light of a billionaire's as it is the monetary value of whatever gifts they bestow.
Thomas in particular is a disapointment. As a black man, I expected him to act as America's contience, but nope he's just in it for his own piece of pie. You too Soto Mayor. Et. al.
We as a country should start putting pressure on Congress to write a reasonable code of ethics for the Supreme Court.
But they are of two different branches of the government.. how would that work?
@@gaurav889constitutional amendment most likely
Wont happen
🤣 You mean getting the crooks to monitor the crooks? The laws are already written as noted, but there is NO ONE in DC who wants the gravy train stop... get it?
It won't matter, they're completely above the law and soon they'll start punishing us for even questioning the position
Self-judgment on whether or not to recuse one's self, should not be decided by the individual. It should be decided by an independent board. Self praise is no recommendation!
"The code is more what you'd call... guidelines... than actual rules."
😂 it honestly sucks that applies here
A judge shall be entitled to know why the rum is gone.
Parlay! Parlay!
Yep. Pirates.
This stinks to high heaven. When one is at the very top of a high standing appointed position. You are supposed to be held even more accountable than those below you. I learned this in the military... One should be above reproach. The stupidity of how long this has gone on without any question. Also the solution is lax and crap as well.
This 💯 Especially when their case gives precedence to all the lower courts and public trust in the entire system relies on their integrity. How's anyone supposed to trust the hand of law at all if they're taking millionaire vacations for free with their plaintiffs?
@@darkshadowrule2952 They are accountable to the constitution and nothing else.
@@JayBee-cr8jm Yeesh, that broad, intentionally ill-defined, confusingly worded thing? No wondee
@@CrescentUmbreon Yes, the same document which has been copied literally word-for-word for other nations to use as their own constitution.
The same document which was so perfectly written that after 234 years, has only been altered 27 times.
Please show me where the "intentionally ill-defined" is.
The people who wrote it knew what a woman was. At least one person tasked with interpreting it does not.
I think we're the problem, not the document.
Americans are the dumbest people on Earth. We have the lowest quality of education of just about any 1st World nation and it's only getting worse.
20% of Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows.
Since the Constitution allows Justices to remain in office "during good behavior," couldn't Congress write an ethics code that is essentially just defining the legal meaning of "good behavior?"
sure...and then it would be challenged and end up at scotus
@@mikey-wl2jt They are separate branches of government. If they weren't, Dred Scott would still be the law.
@@leobigelow7021 i don't follow. Dred Scott was overturned de facto by constitutional amendment (13th and 14th). does Congress have the authority to dictate SCOTUS behavior? that's the constitutional question that would be raised.
@@mikey-wl2jt
If the SC defines good behavior leniently, that wouldn't just affect them, it would be how every law using that term is to be interpreted.
@@draxthemsklonst it's already defined leniently. practically zero article iii judges have ever been impeached and removed from their appointments.
How DARE the Plebs question our integrity !!
This sham "Code of Ethics" is a clear statement from the Supreme Court that they believe themselves to be above the law, if not the embodiment of the law itself. It say -- in many more words -- that they will accept no regulations or oversight upon their own actions as they believe themselves to be the ultimate arbiter of all matters, both legal and ethical.
The Supreme Court is a mistake in execution, even if it is fine in concept. Like so many other systems of our government, it needs to be reformed immediately.
I don't even consider them people anymore. My personal favorite descriptor is "subhelminthic". Technically not an established word, but it means "below parasitic worms."
appointed by the master of "I'm above the law"
Hey, conservatives did you notice how Leeja read off the conflicts of interest and shady behavior of the conservative justices *AND* the liberal justices?
That's what honesty and integrity looks like. I realize that you don't get to see many examples on your side of the aisle so I wanted to point this example out for your edification.
Hey Liberals, did you notice I'm black?
yep was VERY glad to see RBG on the list. Especially with how popular she was with the "public left" because while I understand why someone would be inclined to do what she did, it without a doubt does violate conflict of interest. I agree with what she did, and with the system the way it is, I'm not sure that her doing it caused a negative outcome, but this is why the system itself is broken.
If R's can break the rules and get away with it, the only way to level the playing field is for D's to break the rules too - and at that point, no one is following the rules, and they're now completely worthless...
@@JayBee-cr8jm Literally nobody ever said that blacks can't be conservatives. Nobody said all black people are smart and rational. Grow up, manchild.
I love it when they try to say "IF IT WAS A LIBERAL, YOU WOULD LET IT SLIDE", but no, we really wouldn't. Our political "leaders" are civil SERVANTS, not commanders and kings. They should be treated just like everyone else.
@@JayBee-cr8jm Why are you crying about that under this comment? That doesn't magically stop you from being stupid. Obviously.
"The more he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted the silverware."
*Supreme Court gets an ethics code*
Oh, neat!
*remembers who's on the Supreme Court*
Fffffffffffffuck...
It's VERY diverse.
@@JayBee-cr8jmWe got the liberal justices, and the conservative liberal justices! So diverse
@@joaquinvideo2959 We need a transgender Pacific Islander. That'll show the constitution who's the boss.
@@JayBee-cr8jmWe need someone who ain't some rich person trying to entrench the status quo, marginalized people are statistically more likely to fit this bill because of their marginalization.
@@joaquinvideo2959 What will that change? The constitution says exactly what it says.
The words are the same if a Jew reads it, a tall person reads it, a tall Jew reads it or a poor gay black man reads it.
As an Australian I am terrified, because history has shown me that we will follow suit in most avenues that the US enforces, and given the recent blow to democracy of silencing and punishing whistleblowers of literal actual war crimes, we seem to be catching up in terms of a lack of accountability. Truly terrifying, and I truly don't believe that there is any way the system can be repaired. At this stage the whole thing is rotten to the core and needs to be completely dismantled and built from the ground up.
As a fellow Australian, I am so disgusted at the prosecution of David McBride. And scared.
This is eye-opening: as a U.S. American, I have always considered Australia superior to this country because despite having a lot of the same ugly origin story (thanks Britain!) it seems to have a more robust respect for the rule of law and popular sovereignty.
But your comments are making me think this is really not the case :-(
@@blackeyedsusan727 yeah it is a persona that many australians (esp gov) would love for the rest of the world to see - that' we're just a bunch of 'happy go lucky larakins' but there is a non stop history of human rights abuses from the moment this country was 'founded' till now. There are people who are literally legal asylum seekers who have been kept in indefinite detention offshore for over 5 years in conditions that are literally inhumane.
Just recently the Australian Gov has essentially condoned and has made it much easier to cover up LITERAL war crimes by one of the most depraved, disgusting individuals on the planet. He was completely protected by this government and the whistleblower has had his life destroyed and has no recourse. Oh and the gov decided that he didn't get a fair trial because it was a matter of national security.
The number of heinous despicable democracy destroying actions taken by the entire Aus gov over decades is truly reprehensible.
Honestly Australia is not a good place to live. Every day I become more and more ashamed to call myself Australian thanks to the depraved individuals "running" this country. I would rather live here than the US, but the gap is getting smaller and smaller every day.
Don’t blame Australia, blame Rupert Murdock and Exxon Mobile.
@@shadowsonicsilver6 I very much will blame Australia. Australians are selfish, immoral assholes who don't think about people other than themselves when they vote. That's why we've had a decade of the liberal party and how the liberal party has managed to keep a stranglehold on Australian politics.
I've been exposed to the same Murdoch shit as everyone else, I've just actually bothered to be critical of the media I consume, unlike the majority of this forsaken country.
Murdoch is an easy out so people don't have to take responsibility for their own actions or critical thinking. Really, they're just selfish and don't want to consider viewpoints other than their own.
Fuckin Queensland
Usually when a person in power looks like they're doing the right thing, it's only because it looks like it.
Sometimes they are made to. Sometimes they're neither made to nor merely appear to do the right thing, but are doing the right thing freely because it happens to be the thing they'd be doing anyway. And sometimes, there's some internal psychological connection between why they do it and it being the right thing, but the rest of us are just stupid-lucky on such occasions.
I just have to say, and I read a lot of TH-cam comments-I’ve never seen someone use an emoji as their TH-cam profile picture 😂
Cool 👍🏻
The highest, most powerful positions, requiring the utmost responsibility....
CANNOT have the lowest standards.
Toothless ethical "suggestions" mean nothing.
To resist or obstruct fair, and necessary ethical changes in judicial regulation, in parity with existing rules for lower justices, is a bold red flag.
Entitled, Priveleged and Tone Deaf.
Hard boundaries and finite penalties are required for one of the highest positions in America. Any honest judge would embrace the changes.
I watched a video on Legal Eagle a couple of months ago where a lawyer was looking at disbarment because he used A.I. to generate legal precedence and it made a hash of the entire thing. I don't disagree with the potential fate of that person because they were too lazy to review the information before handing it in hence they deserve what they get. It would appear that with this new Supreme Court code it will become a case of not getting what they deserve and that proves further that justice isn't blind, it's insane !!
I Really Appreciate this young Woman's Brain! Thanks for Educating ALL of US.....
3 equal branches of corruption
This actually makes me think we don't have enough Justices. If we had enough that we could have rotating SCOTUS panels, there would be less pressure not to recuse when required. I think the SCOTUS needs to be rethought, which would be an interesting project in a polarized country. But if we could establish a consensus, it would be a good thing, to put it lightly.
So, I knew the state of the Supreme Court was bad, but I had admittedly not looked too deeply into how bad it was. Wow, it's bad, but hey, good news! It's bipartisan.
Good lord, they all have to go.
I wouldn't call it bipartisan. These justices are looking out for themselves, its just that the republicans pay more.
@@kezia8027I think the op meant that the corruption is conducted by both parties.
But in general you are not wrong at all
@@nyxskids oh yeah no I definitely understand, but I'd argue they're actively not bipartisan, because that implies that they do have actual ties to either party.
I would argue they are in their own party separate from Dems or republicans because they are quite literally above the law, so to say that they are one or the other doesn't really apply in the same way that it would for the average person.
Republicans are in the SCOTUS party, SCOTUS isn't in the Republican party.
This "ethics" of theirs really just cements that they are not a part of the same system as the rest of us. They view themselves as above and outside the system, and even the biggest Democrat or republican is still within the system.
@@kezia8027 Both parties are corrupt, because both parties are, at their core, parties of neoliberal power. They put different faces on it and have some different stances on some social issues, but they're both corrupt neoliberals in it for the power.
@@kezia8027 That's a solid point. There is a very real SCOTUS bubble here.
It breaks my heart to see how bad things have gotten in America. Usually knowledge is power, but the more I learn the more hopeless I feel.
It seems like everything from the ground up is so corruptly intermingled that you can’t solve one problem at a time without pulling the string into a massive knot.
My wife is a doctor. After she pays her student loans off, we can emigrate to any country we want. It’s scary to think about leaving our friends and family behind. But when we look at our boys’ futures, what does that look like in America?
More wealth inequality, more poverty, more violence, more ignorance, more lunacy, more corruption.
Why would we choose to raise our boys here and let them loose into a crumbling country?
I don’t have hope left for America.
Thank you, Leeja. This is really bad and not much hope in sight. Only two ways of helping the situation come to mind:
1. Congress must legislate a code of ethics with an actual stake of removal from the office. Both those parts are unlikely: The two-thirds majority Senate actually wanting to take on the court, while it's currently working quite as intended for one side, and even more so the actual teeth, which would be necessary. If justices can stay and enjoy the benefits, at most getting reprimanded, why wouldn't they?
2. Greatly increased public interest and scrutiny. This could more easily happen as the impact of the courts' decisions ever increases, but likely still not quickly enough, unfortunately. It's the idea, that shame is powerful, which is becoming more and more of a cultural relic. It would have to be *multiplied* public interest and even then the remedy is soft punishment through loss of standing and respect, not hard consequences. Still, I'd consider it to be the more likely of the two to be promising, for now.
(3. A change in the court's ideological makeup to again be more balanced and unpredictable. I'm speaking of retirements and new appointments. This could make the prospect of the court making increasingly political and impactful decisions unattractive to both parties again: too high risk. Then they might want to reign them in, but I don't see this as particularly likely either, judging from the past)
I’m guessing that it will still let Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito do their thing. God, this Court is corrupt.
Don't even need to guess. They already said nothing wrong has been done!
They're the two who keep the closest to the Constitution as written, and that's why you dislike them.
@@JohnWarner-lu8rq Ok, Republican.
@@randomguy2048 I'm neither a Republican 'nor a democrat, I'm a Constitutional Conservative.
@@JohnWarner-lu8rq That's not just wrong, that's dumb as all hell. Must be why you like them.
A very thorough and informative video. Thank you for not pulling punches on the more liberal justices. I already knew about the conservative justices. I appreciate having a more complete picture.
The fact we are having a debate about ethics at the Supreme Court is representative of how deeply damaged our nation is. Ethics in our nations highest court is unequivocally beyond reproach- period. 'Shouldn't' is not an option.
Honestly it'd be better to have no official court. Anytime a case need be reviewed at the highest level, convene judges who have experience in that area of law selected by legal scholars.
I lost my personal regard for the Supreme Court during the appointment hearings for Clarence Thomas and never again considered gaining it back. I wonder why? I am pretty sure his appointment was a political payoff instigated by Monsanto who had him on their legal staff, then he was a judge who ruled in their favor and finally he was appointed to the Supreme Court. The last straw was the ridiculous treatment of Anita Hill in those appointment hearings in order to get him appointed to the Court. Not surprised that he, and many who have come after, lack ethics.
Does the lawyer code of ethics mean only lawyers have to say "this is not legal advice"?
It can't substantially apply to non-lawyers, but it should certainly establish that it is a damn good idea for other people, who are _even less_ able to supply appropriate legal advice, to be clear about that. How the rest of us go about requiring people take up damn good ideas is on the rest of us.
@@jeffengel2607🧱🍾🔫🙌 This is not revolutionary advice
Where are you? I miss you! Hope you're doing well. ❤
The part that got me the most was them saying that the media & the pepple MISUNDERSTOOD what they did. Big "im sorry you were offended, energy"
We couldn’t possibly understand their pure, unbiased practices of not recusing themselves from conflicts of interest and accepting millions of dollars in “gifts.” Not with our puny little brains.
@@lisadoes lol. Exactly. We're just rubes!
"Yes this is why we can't have heroes"
Gives the same energy as, "Don't meet your heroes."
I hope if I ever become anyone's hero I can try to be a good enough person that they don't feel like my work or messages are a lie.
Edit: fixed typos
Thank you, as ever, for your work here.
Usually I watch your vids about an hour after they come out, but today I had an obligation and was watching it quite late with a cocktail in hand - and I'm glad. This was a rough one - not as a video (top notch as always!) but due to the content.
Although let's be real: things have been quite grim of late.
I suppose that's why I'm so grateful to have a legal scholar such as yourself to walk us through the things that are a bit above my paygrade that I didn't specialize in.
At any rate - you're doing beautiful work. Thank you again, very sincerely
You got a new member in me today, Leeja - you deserve it🎉, love both you and your amazing videos - much, much love from Norway 🇧🇻💝
Thank you!!
With their code of ethics the supreme court is giving a masterclass on how to make corruption legal.
SC justices should be elected by the public instead of being appointed along party lines. It's party affiliations that cause the corruption.
@@FASBLAQUE What corruption?
@@JayBee-cr8jm The corruption that allows lobbying, gerrymandering, passing controversial legislation in a rush at 2:35 AM while the majority of the country is sleeping etc etc.
@@JayBee-cr8jmDuh!
@@GrandduchessAnastasia-ko5rg WELL?
I miss your weekly videos, @LeejaMiller! 🥺
Once Leeja said “can’t accept gifts more than $50 in a year” I laughed OUTLOUD.
America was always a civil oligarchy. At least now it's not even trying to hide it. What I don't understand is why I'm the only one who seems to know this.
It is questionable why the undemocratic nature of American government rarely is addressed.
Question, in that rhetorical and sarcastic sort of way:
Is there not a case brought about by the class of people Thomas and Alito have taken 'gifts' from... will they recuse themselves?
So much for the code they just finished writing, the ink wasn't even dry!
"Investigate corruption?" I thought you said "instigate corruption!"
A lot of State Supreme Courts have term limits, We need that for the Federal courts
Not term limits, age limits + mental competency tests.
@@randomguy2048And criminalizing lobbying
No, term limits, age limits, and mental competency tests.
at the very least a reasonable retirement age.
@@colorbugoriginals4457 Why? What was wrong with Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
Can't we sue the government over this? Clearly nothing short of force(legal) from the people will change this.
Thanks for the upload Leeja! The effort and time you put into these videos is definitely reflected in the quality, and I've learned so much from them!
You're a bot.
@@leobigelow7021 you caught me gang damn 😞😫🙏🏼
Dear Leeja:
I am a HUGE fan of all of your videos. For context, I am a 72 year old white guy, Gay & proud FDR Democrat living in NW FL who thinks you are one of THE BEST content providers & influencers on TH-cam. I appreciate all of your videos. This one has me so upset, I had to pause it at the 15 minute mark. Nonetheless, please keep up the good work. 💙
Why doesn’t a lawyer presenting a case before the Supreme Court object to a judge presiding if he or she has a conflict of interest and what’s more, detail that conflict to the court and if necessary to the media?
You, Some More News, and John Oliver are hands down my favorite sources for news like this
I like him, but Cody Johnston is a total mess. Dude's disheveled 24/7
@@nobody.of.importance That is part of his carefully crafted "look".
@@nobody.of.importance can you blame him?? XD
@@nobody.of.importanceit’s a character
where are u girl, we miss u 😢
What can actually be done about this to correct this issue? Some of these folks need to be removed from the court. They have violated the trust of the people.
*cough* didn't you guys have a 2nd amendment for a reason? *cough* (no I do not advocate violence, but like legitimately, is this exact situation not what it was implemented for?)
Sure, but the great majority of the guns are owned by people that would be fighting to defend the Supreme Court, not reduce its power.
@@bennyv4444 oh I don't think it would be a good idea or useful... But like isn't this exact situation literally the only reason the amendment exists at all?? Explicitly to be able to defend yourselves against an unjust government? Or have I as an Australian misunderstood the purpose of the second amendment (which is totally possible too)
@@kezia8027
Yeah that is a popular but not exactly correct understanding that a lot of American Conservatives have.
The justification for violence against the government that they claim to see in the second amendment is in fact in the American tradition, from our founding through violence, and the many revolutionary writings of the founding fathers. All of that revolutionary tradition is inherently violent, and it tends to be expressed vaguely in American political history through discourse about the second amendment and states rights.
The actual historical purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that each individual state would be allowed to maintain its own military force, because federalism and subsidiarity were kinda the obsession of the southern colony’s representatives at the constitutional convention.
@@bennyv4444 can't say I'm surprised it isn't quite as simple as people make it out to be.
So in (overly) simple terms it is saying that each STATE has the right to their own armed military force rather than individual citizens having the right to being armed?
Ie. would that mean that this is actually almost endorsing the civil war? Like that the south had a right to defend themselves against s government they saw as unfit/unjust, and that they had the right to forcefully defend their "freedom" (to own slaves)?
Asking congress to be ethical 😂😂😂.... America makes me sad...
Expand the Supreme Court to 15 justices.
so now that youve explained the ethics associated with public office does anyone with a pulse not currently living in a cave believe that there is a senator. president, governor, or other powerful/insulated member of US govent that ISNT violating the spirit of that code? Id be amazed if we could find one.
Kava naughty hasn't explained the two hundred thousand dollars in cash he magically got
Pack the court to minimize these traitors until they resign.
Got a Prager U ad at "Roll the intro." HAHAHAHAHA
Yes another new video!!!! Love her content
A couple centuries ago European monarchs faced the same kind of dilemma. The ones that chose the status quo ebded up losing their heads.
Ok SCOTUS gets unlimited mulligans and Jedi master powers, “nothing to see here” and “did I do that?”
Come back Leeja! I miss seeing new videos from you!
Yes, they have become illegit.
Stop obeying their rulings. That's what I'm doing. I'm also putting all my taxes in an offshore account until the country can return to sanity, at which point they'll be welcome to it.
Thank you for this video. I also have always wondered why the Supreme Court’s ethics requirements are so lax compared to the independence standards we CPA’s must adhere to.
Hope you’re well. Miss you content
Appreciate how she points out democratic judges that also abuse their power. An ethics code should be a bipartisan effort.
I think we should all snail mail Clarence a pubic hair. #neverforget
All that will do is create a headache for some unfortunate aide somewhere way down the chain in the justice department.
It’s not even likely that the person will be directly connected to Clarence. Probs just some public servant
A girl can dream 🤣
No one ever gets held accountable in the hell on earth we call America
No, if Trump wins this will be Hell- right now we're in purgatory.
Am I the only one concerned that the highest judges in the nation are even relatively interested in doing things like writing books or giving speeches for money? They make over a quarter mil a year... And they need more money? Really? Am I the only one skeptical of letting people interested in making more money be supreme judges - especially when people with a lot of money are frequently under their authority?
I don't think it's wise to put anyone interested in making more money than necessary into public office.
The same code of conduct needs to be applied and required for the SCOTUS
Watching and paying attention to the Supreme Court makes me not want to even vote!! It is disgusting
You have to vote to change laws.
@@elsie412ok they are all so corrupt!! Do not like any of them - republicans want to control women like Hitler did . And Biden does not say anything to the red state women & LGBTQ communities! He appears useless
Yoooo I cancelled the other video I was watching to check in on the latest Leeja Miller video.
Where is Leeja?
Dig the casual look, Leeja. Keep rockin.
my favourite Leeja line "I am a lawyer, but i'm not YOUR lawyer." We get this all the time as accountants too "ughhh, no I can't get you out of paying taxes, I'm an accountant, not a magician!"
"There's literally a line for claiming money from illegal means just pay your taxes that's how they got Capone"
Well, now we know what happened to the Roman Empire at the end, which one of the SCOTUS judges plays the fiddle ?
Tangential - re "not your lawyer, this is not legal advice" - Lawyers on social media do apparently often aspire to provide popular layperson legal education so we're less clueless out there. I take it there is a difference between this and reckless legal advice outside the conditions the codes reasonably require. Just what ARE those differences though?
Medical professionals with a social media presence have the same disclaimer for the same reason, it's just a reminder that people should take something someone says with a grain of salt and form their own informed conclusion. Both medlife crisis mama Dr Jones and chubbyemu do this iirc
Accountants and financial advisor's too I just remembered
Bravo. Very glad this channel showed up in my feed this week. Keep up the good work.
A few judges realized their indoor pool gets cold in the winter, so they need the extra manipulation of law to support their power-trips. Just a guess.
I'm thankful I found your channel. You know how to find the things that are important to me that slip on by. I appreciate it
“I want either less corruption, or more chance to participate in it.” Ashleigh Brilliant
Anything more than an acceptance of a bottle of water must be a violation. Period. End of story.
We have the best government money can buy.
-- Will Rogers
What sucks is I'm sure the founding fathers never figured in how bad corruption in government and in the judicial system would get. That's pretty bad, thinking our founding fathers could never imagine how corrupt and dishonest the system they thought up could actually be.
"Gaping hole for mischief" couldn't pay attention to the first few minutes of the video cuz that's reporter had me dying
amy coney barrett, at the 'mcconnel center' at Louisville, standing next to 'mitch mcconnel', while talking about 'keeping politics out of the judiciary' -- is breathtaking and it brings up 2 bigger related issues. first, the conservative mind is truly breathtaking. ive studied the political economy for about 15 years now and still, it never ceases to amaze me whenever i come across right-wing, conservative thoughts/arguments/etc... i mean liberals are conservative no doubt. but when we talk about the American "right" its just awe-inspiring... second, when it comes to official positions like supreme court justices, unelected people granted amazing amounts of power and tasked to do things requiring deep understanding, and vast amounts of knowledge on a large breadth of topics, there is an amount of qualification that should be (and is claimed to be) present amongst candidates. in this case, with barrett, shouldnt an action like that mentioned earlier - at mcconel, next to mcconnel, while proclaiming the virtue and necessity of keeping politics out of the judiciary - be disqualifying? not saying anyone would hold anyone accountable but in the court of public opinion, actions like barrett's here are so ridiculous it should warrant all the evidence you need to realize barrett's intellectual ability, that it is non-existent, and therefore disqualifying? i know im wordy and i run on and on but one more question....
is it really possible that people can look at 'at mcconnel, next to mcconnel, while claiming NO POLITICS!', and not conclude the incredible absurdity and hypocrisy? regardless, i leave you with these facts: "everything is political" and "you cant be neutral on a moving train" (there is no such thing as beting 'unbiased' or 'objective')
I'm a conservative. Bring it. One of our most basic beliefs is limited government. What you propose is gutting the whole idea of an independent judiciary (while pretending otherwise) and making the Supreme Court just another arm of whatever political party is in power. In other words, Argentina. Please, Mr. Astonished-at-the-Conservative-Mind, tell us all, specifically, what would happen if Supreme Court justices were able to be "disqualified". Hint: slavery would still be legal.
But objectivity can be held as the ideal and holding oneself accountable by recognizing one's inherent biases is possible.
Myopia is not preordained for us all.
@@leobigelow7021 your argument for "limited government" and an "independent judiciary" void or detached from "politics" is a fairy tale that does not and cannot exist. you are completely ignoring the history and reality of the judiciary, justices and courts -- the Supreme Court and judiciary already are political institutions, through and through. it is impossible for justices to be apolitical and claims of "independence" based on life time terms, their unelected nature as legislative appointees, and related only make justices "independent" from accountability, NOT politics. consider that justices are middle-aged and older. are we to believe that in the 45+ years they have been alive they have developed no preferences or world views as to how society operates and is structured? more importantly, are we to assume that all justices are created equal and are basically computational machines blanked of ideology? if that is so then why do Republicans favor certain candidates over others and vice versa with Democrats? the answer. because the courts are not only political, they are the enforcing wing of all politics. and all of this is said without even mentioning all of the recent reports of corruption on the bench - eg clarence thomas and his billionaire right-wing daddy.
so no. you are wrong. i do not propose gutting an "independent" judiciary and making it an arm of "whatever political party is in power" - thats already how it is. its already been gutted and enlisted as an arm of political power - back in 1776. and, while i appreciate you accusation of bad faith - "while pretending otherwise" - i assure you i do not pretend and what you are mistaking for bad faith is rather just your willful ignorance for assessing the court as it actually exists and assessing those concepts and tall claims like "limited government" and "independent judiciary" for actual feasibility/desirability or even whether such things can even exist in the first place... so as to not mince words or pretend any further, heres the answer to your question, "what would happen if the Supreme Court justices were able to be 'disqualified'?" (and a word on "slavery would still be legal")
what would happen depends on the mechanism that would make it happen. suppose supreme court justices were answerable to the people directly, as other political offices are, through general elections held periodically or when special circumstances arise. if judges weren't appointed for life and instead had to be reelected each term, however long that may be, they would be tightly bound to the will of the people, and should they not carry out their duties, find themselves ousted. "but the judiciary would then be at the whims of the People instead of the law?" i hear you cry. well, the people already dictate what laws are made and how they are enforced through legislative and executive elected representatives (at least in theory), so it follows that the People themselves should be the check on whether or not the judiciary correctly interprets the will of the People. after all, the laws and how they enforced are based on the will and desires of the People right? then it is that same source that should decide whether or not their chosen rules for governance are being interpreted as they wish. in this way, the People are the great up-holders of the law, not a body that undermines or ignores it...
said another way, the lawmakers create laws desired by the People, so why then, would the People work to undermine or disempower the rule of law? they wouldnt but you know who might? unelected supreme court justices who have no exposure to the will of the People. so, no, the People are not the risk to dismantle the rule of law, insead, as we have now, the real threat and active attacker of our systems of governance is private power through the judiciary as it is the one branch shielded from public action.
if justices could be disqualified, those who do not carry out the People's will - correctly interpreting the People's laws as the People originally intended them - would correctly be relieved of their duty and power. finally, to address your weird "slavery would still be legal" assertion...
if the people didnt force the supreme court and governing bodies to outlaw slavery, it would still be legal today. you have it backward. its not the supreme court that acted to outlaw slavery, it was the people who forced the governing bodies to their will. but leaving that aside take the framework i have laid out above. the People, through the abolishionists movement and other progressive social organizing and actions, widely supported the ending of slavery and did so for quite a long time before the powers that be did anything about it. if we had my system in place those people could have ousted justices and legislators not making/interpreting the laws as desired - outlawing slavery. it would only be until the next term before a large enough and popular enough movement would have been able to get into positions of power people who would carry out that will. however, under your system, we might have had to wait an entire lifetime....!!!!
which is exactly what we did and is exactly what we do over and over and over again in this country. the Supreme Court justices have a long and ubiquitous history of up-holding at all times the desires of concentrated power against the will of the People. the Court isn't just political it is THE political weapon of the anti-democratic anti-social authoritarian ruling class minority. as such it is extremely biased in favor of the "status-quo", which conservatives like you pretend means "unbiased". but like most everything else, pretend is all conservatives do...
@@dionmcgee5610 what you are talking about is honesty not objectivity. here ill elaborate a little.
for starters, what does "objectivity" even mean? maybe something like, "drawing conclusions solely based on relevant facts and information?" but who determines what is "relevant"? it requires having a pre-constructed model for the problem's domain. this is a problem especially with topics of social significance where it is impossible to know exactly how society works. subjects like history and the political economy, two of which demands for "objectivity" are loudest, are the most frequent violators of "objectivity" whilst claiming their "unbiassedness". by approaching things "objectively", you say discovering your inherent biases is possible. this is false. bias is the thing that effects your judgment without your knowledge. this is when claiming "objectivity" gets dangerous.
your real biases, the ones you do not recognize, influence how you go about your life. when you claim your judgment on some issue is "objective" you hide information about those internal unknown biases from your audience. in the worst case, for those who do not know better, they will believe your work is the absolute truth and therefore accept it without question. this is where ideological insanity comes from and is why propaganda is so effective - claims of the "objective" on pieces constructed precisely to appeal to a target audience, the combination of appealing to their worldview while claiming objectivity poisons them. have no fear though! there is a solution!
state up front your beliefs and what you are attempting to convey in your message. for instance, something like: i am on the political Left and have zero trust for power and hierarchies. my goals are to describe my view of the topic from the perspective of the People, as opposed to the powerful or wealthy. of course i have not intentionally left anything out of my narrative intentionally and have done work to try and include oppositional data and information. with that said, be skeptical about everything i say and lookup my claims and sources for yourself as much as possible...
Thanks!
Damn, dude! I wish I had that kinda spending money! Very kind of you, though c:
I'm starting to want to become a supreme court justice just so I can flagrantly announce that I am willing to vote on a ruling based on what the highest bidder requests from a private auction. I of course won't follow through with it, but I will publicly announce it and claim that it is perfectly legal, the only difference between what I am doing and the other justices is that I am doing it publicly.
Not that the GOP cares. I care. I want my rights back.
I think it was a mistake to give them lifetime appointments. They become royalty with no accountability because of that.
Yes, let’s let congress decide on which “ethics” the supreme court should follow. After all, they do such a great job policing themselves. Insider trading for all!
Don't forget about all those stolen pandemic relief funds.
Thanks Leeja. Excellent as always. As a long-practicing attorney it is appalling to see the level of disregard that the highest court’s justices have for their ethical conduct and for the concept of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. The consequential erosion of confidence in the judiciary threatens the basis of our democracy - that we are governed by the rule of law and that no one is above the law, notwithstanding the fact that it is aspirational and a concept that has never been fully realized. Keep on shining a light on these threats. Maybe enough people will wake up to them before it’s too late.
Why should they live without fear. Fear is the only thing that makes people act ethically.
Dignity, honor, and self respect push plenty of people to behave ethically. It just so happens that SCOTUS are allergic to all those, as well.
@@RevShifty How about, "Fear is the only thing that makes bad people act ethically"?
@@nobody.of.importance That definitely works. You scare a wannabe bully bad enough, and they turn into an altar boy pretty damn fast.
Fear is definitly not the only thing to make people act ethically. Jail/prison are supposed to put fear into people to obey laws & act as a deterrent & yet the USA has one of the highest population behind bars so idk how well that idea holds up, y'know? That being said..... they could use a little fear lol ...but they're clearly above the law and arent held accountable so why should they? It's all kinds of fucked.
@@RevShifty all of those are just fear in another name. Fear of losing your dignity. Fear of losing your honor. Fear.
"Yeah... but hear me out... How about you all just trust we're just better than y'all!"
SCOTUS.
Come backkkk 😢 we miss ur voice of reason
No wonder our Democracy is now flooded by special interest funding. Corporations now get better representation than everyday Americans do.
Writing your own rules is ridiculous 😅on its face, without high education or positions.