The code of Conduct Clarence Thomas is violating

[NJmaverick]

March 17, 2009 — The Judicial Conference of the United States today adopted a revised Code of Conduct for United States Judges that will take effect July 1, 2009, the first substantial Code revision since 1992. At its biannual meeting, the Conference also voted to ask Congress to create 63 new federal judgeships — 12 in the courts of appeals (nine permanent and three temporary) and 51 in the district courts (38 permanent and 13 temporary).

In voting to adopt the revised Code of Conduct, the Conference condensed what had been seven rules, or canons, to five, and reworded the language accompanying each canon into plainer, clearer English.

The revised Code builds on the dictate in Canon 1 that judges should uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary.

In Canon 2, which states judges should “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities,” the revised Code for the first time offers a definition of the “appearance of impropriety.” It states: “An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.”

That Canon now includes additional forms of impermissible influence, and expands the test for an appearance of impropriety to address concerns beyond judges’ adjudicative responsibilities.

"CANON 2: A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE
OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES

A. Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

B. Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

C. Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.

COMMENTARY

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.
Canon 2B. Testimony as a character witness injects the prestige of the judicial office into the proceeding in which the judge testifies and may be perceived as an official testimonial. A judge should discourage a party from requiring the judge to testify as a character witness except in unusual circumstances when the demands of justice require. This Canon does not create a privilege against testifying in response to an official summons.
A judge should avoid lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others. For example, a judge should not use the judge’s judicial position or title to gain advantage in litigation involving a friend or a member of the judge’s family. In contracts for publication of a judge’s writings, a judge should retain control over the advertising to avoid exploitation of the judge’s office.
A judge should be sensitive to possible abuse of the prestige of office. A judge should not initiate communications to a sentencing judge or a probation or corrections officer but may provide information to such persons in response to a formal request. Judges may participate in the process of judicial selection by cooperating with appointing authorities and screening committees seeking names for consideration and by responding to official inquiries concerning a person being considered for a judgeship."

I think its a close call because it does not appear that his wife is trying to influence or that he is allowing any, but his wife receiving large amounts of money from private interests just might influence someone's judicial judgment; Whenever there's a question, the better practice is to strictly interpret the rule.

[FSogol]

1. Proud to K&R. n/t

[Spazito]

2. Interesting....

at the very least, Thomas should recuse himself when cases arise that involve any corporation, etc, that contributes to his wife's organization but, sadly, we know he will not do so and nothing will be done about it.

[NJmaverick]

4. Plus they set his wife up in an organization that is not required to list donors or their amount

so there is no way to know if he is complying, which is a violation of the code.

[Spazito]

10. Yep, it was done deliberately....

and the code will be proven to be only empty words ignored with impunity.

[NJmaverick]

18. Sadly you're right and since the republican 5 have already sold Congress and the Presidency

this was a the last bastion of government that was supposedly free of corporate dollars. Then again maybe Thomas and his four cohorts had already planned this out so they could get their pay back for the Citizen United laws they created.

[Spazito]

20. I believe this was the 'end game' for much of what was done during the ....

bush cabal's reign. This WAS the reason for the appointment of Roberts and Alito, to set the court for the case upon which it ruled re corporations. This was the ultimate quid pro quo situation, their vote on a/the case, Citizen United as it turns out, in return for a lifetime appointment, imo.

[HughMoran]

3. Don't forget that his recent decision on Citizens allows her group to spend unlimited funds

I think the conflict of interest here is a very serious matter and should be looked at for possible impeachment. His decision is SO close to her actions with this PAC - we know these people have conversations about this stuff - they friggin' live together after all.

[NJmaverick]

5. I would like to see impeachment on the table. His wife or him need to step down

but they can't both do what they are doing.

[Bitwit1234]

6. Isn't there some way they could look into impeachment process

after all I read and I know everyone else did that he HELPED HER ORGANIZE this group and get it off the ground. What more do they need to kick his butt out. Supreme Court Judges think they are above the law...I think this should be a test case.

[Winterblues]

7. Not as if he was the hunting partner of someone with a pending case before him..

Scalia and Cheney immediately come to mind..They spent a weekend hunting together immediately before the Energy meetings case came before the court..Of course Scalia did not recuse himself..

[NJmaverick]

8. Republicans believe the rules only apply to others, not themselves

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. So much BushCo crime it's hard to remember it all

Thanks for the reminder!

[PRETZEL]

11. We're talking the Roberts Court,

rules don't apply.

Also, I'm not sure if this applies to the Supreme Court anyway.

[NJmaverick]

12. Why wouldn't it apply?

if anything they should have to have the highest ethical standards as a result of the tremendous power they wield.

[PRETZEL]

14. The should,

but Supreme Court mainly deals with Constitutional questions, not matters of law.

I don't disagree at all with the sentiment of the Code of Conduct.

I just happen to think this court believes otherwise. Unfortunately, the arbitors who have to administer this Code is the Senate which it won't.

[NJmaverick]

16. While the Supreme Court decides Constitutional law the parties involved

in the cases are people, corporations and others. Unless there is impeachment, it appears the only one to decide if Clarence has a conflict of interest is Clarence.

[PRETZEL]

19. And that's why you'll never see

the Right 5 ever entertaining recusal.

[gratuitous]

13. Any decision to recuse Justice Thomas is up to . . .

Justice Thomas. I'll bet a $50 donation to DU against a shiny nickel that Slappy never recuses himself from consideration of any case before the Court.

[NJmaverick]

15. He didn't recuse himself from appointing Bush President

while his wife was looking into a job in the future Bush administration. So I think you are making a safe bet.

[philly_bob]

17. His wife was on the Bush transition team during Bush v. Gore arguments. (nt)

[Cha]

21. Thanks Maverick...I should have missed this

but somehow was directed right to it.

Very important. This is war between Democracy and Facism in the United States of America.