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.
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.
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.
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.
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
@@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)
@@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.
🤣 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?
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.
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."
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!"
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
As electors who appoint and advance these fellow citizens, We are the cause. We must be willing to address integrity in every area of our society to fix the problems.
Vote! Be politically active from your local politicians on up. We have a representative democracy, if your voice isn’t heard, it’s because you’re not making it heard. Always vote, people gave their lives to make sure you would have a voice in your governance.
Its terrible that these corrupt judges enjoy freedom. It makes it very tempting to do nasty stuff ourselves. Bet they couldnt care less. They live in rich hoods, maybe with security. What a bunch of creeps
@@nobody.of.importance uhh you remember Jan 6? Now imagine that they WANT an excuse to hurt you instead of being on your side. Also they literally have tanks and other military grade weaponry to "enforce peace" I don't think a violent coup is actually possible within the US. I truly believe that if it was attempted, it would near INSTANTLY break down into anarchy and chaos, and I would wager that those with the most guns are not the ones that will be pushing for the most egalitarian system they can...
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.
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.
I am beginning to think that what lawyers call an "independent" judiciary is really just an "unaccountable" judiciary. I really think that Congress should put a hard limit on the fees and levies that courts can impose on things like filing motions and supplement that lost revenue from the treasury. I also believe that the Supreme Court decided to make itself political when it ruled the way that it did in Marbury v. Madison.
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.
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
This whole thing is the equivalency of corporations being able to self regulate themselves in the interest of the public. It never works. They always create rules, which they don’t really have to do anything, and they redefined the terms and conditions or definitions, for which things apply thus making it where they really don’t have to do anything different at all. Additionally, I want to say that almost every major profession in the United States, has a code of ethics that they must adhere to. Most of the ones that I’m familiar with have continuing education credits that must be accumulated throughout a given year and part of those credits include ethical evaluation’s.
Given that the body that would enforce any code of conduct on the court would either be the court itself or congress, I don't think we can expect much to be done to fix this. I know there are downsides to the tactic, but honestly I think it is time to reduce the harms any one corrupt justice can inflict by packing the court. Double it in size so that the cost to influence a decision is at least significantly higher. Plus if Biden were to pack the court today, it would at least bring the political views of the court marginally closer to being in-line with popular opinion instead of being drastically more right-wing than the people want. He _should_ have packed the court the moment it seemed like Roe v. Wade was going to be re-examined. The harms caused by that one decision outweigh anything that packing the court could do.
"And third, the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules" -Captain Barbossa (The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, 2003)
I have a love-hate relationship with your channel. Our politics are really, really different, but I appreciate and respect the quality of your research and philosophical consistency of your commentary. Thanks for doing this.
Establishing this ethics code, albeit necessary, is too little, too late. The recent lavish excursions and ties with billionaires by Justices aren't just troubling; they erode the very foundation of public trust. Self-regulation without external oversight is a flawed approach, allowing biases and self-interest to seep into what should be impartial decision-making. The debate over Congress's authority in this matter also seems like a diversion from the real issue. The Supreme Court should not be beyond external ethical oversight but it’s high time for *externally enforced* ethical standards to ensure the court operates with the integrity and impartiality it's supposed to uphold.
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...
8:22 every lawyer watching this cringing when she says attorney-client privilege instead of confidentiality. The duty of confidentiality is an ethical duty that is separate and distinct but related to the evidentiary rule of attorney-client privilege.
My problem with the current supreme court isn't their lack of an ethics code (I never expected them to have much of one), it's that they ignore precedent _and the words of the laws themselves_ to impose their views from the bench.
They're the Supreme Court. They decide what's precedent, and if they want to change it, they can. That's what they're supposed to do. That's why Plessy v. Ferguson is no longer law. Every major social advance in this country happened because the Superme Court reversed a precedent.
@@leobigelow7021you're right, but now they're taking rights away- not adding to our rights. We're devolving legally- going backwards morally- human rights-wise abortion is an ethical necessity. Something religious fundamentalists can't see .
I want to support an ethics code though it is a double edged sword. I think they're more insulated than Leeja lays out. They're only looking at each other for their choices and norms. A drop of speculation, they think of themselves as mental giants (which was mentioned) but I also think they look at each other and think, "no one else recuses, i don't wanna be that guy(or girl)". It could also be used against one another and twisted to protect those who are actually breaking the rules. One thing that could resolve some of the issue is diluting the court. Additional justices seem to only be brought up when they reach a horrible conclusion but we need to think about it in general. 1869, ffs, a quick Google found this little fun fact about that year "Elizabeth Cady Stanton becomes the first woman to testify before the United States Congress". Anyways, more justices would allow a justice to recuse when they should (if they don't it wouldn't also be as big of a deal, the numbers take care of that). But still.. blah blah, we need more representatives to match our population, blah blah. Reeks of number limits to maintain power and there's some kind of wink and nod agreement to not mess with one another.
This was such a good video. Just like all your videos, this video doesn’t discriminate. You are so good at showing both sides (meaning calling out both liberal and conservative judges). I’m very liberal, but I really appreciate being able to see both sides. And see the unethical things that both sides are doing. It’s such a balanced approach that very few are actually doing. Thank you so much for your videos Leeja!
I have little respect for the military, but I respect most of the people in it (as well as vets, ofc). Our government has you guys do awful shit, and then y'all get all the blame for it. Glad you made it out okay, I hear it can be very VERY scary sometimes.
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
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!
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.
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.
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?
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
"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 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"
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.
How DARE the Plebs question our integrity !!
"The more he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted the silverware."
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.
3 equal branches of corruption
*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
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.
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.
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.
I Really Appreciate this young Woman's Brain! Thanks for Educating ALL of US.....
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
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.
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.
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.
Kava naughty hasn't explained the two hundred thousand dollars in cash he magically got
Asking congress to be ethical 😂😂😂.... America makes me sad...
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!
Ok SCOTUS gets unlimited mulligans and Jedi master powers, “nothing to see here” and “did I do that?”
Can't we sue the government over this? Clearly nothing short of force(legal) from the people will change this.
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?
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"
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 🤣
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
A couple centuries ago European monarchs faced the same kind of dilemma. The ones that chose the status quo ebded up losing their heads.
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.
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
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?
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 Court needs to be expanded to 13, to match the number of US Circuit courts as originally intended. This would also make recusals less disruptive.
Pack the court to minimize these traitors until they resign.
"Yeah... but hear me out... How about you all just trust we're just better than y'all!"
SCOTUS.
Why does Ruth Bater Ginsberg need to make Stalin sound cool, because he would *apparently * be in favor of ethics oversight on the supreme court?
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.
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.
Yoooo I cancelled the other video I was watching to check in on the latest Leeja Miller video.
New ethics code or toilet paper? Toilet paper would be more useful for cleaning up the supreme court.
As electors who appoint and advance these fellow citizens, We are the cause. We must be willing to address integrity in every area of our society to fix the problems.
Vote! Be politically active from your local politicians on up. We have a representative democracy, if your voice isn’t heard, it’s because you’re not making it heard.
Always vote, people gave their lives to make sure you would have a voice in your governance.
“I want either less corruption, or more chance to participate in it.” Ashleigh Brilliant
Its terrible that these corrupt judges enjoy freedom. It makes it very tempting to do nasty stuff ourselves. Bet they couldnt care less. They live in rich hoods, maybe with security. What a bunch of creeps
yeah only downside is that if YOU do it, it's life in jail, when THEY do it, it's just them trying to live normal lives. duh...
@@kezia8027 I'd like to see the cops try to stop a crowd of thousands of angry protestors. We have power in numbers.
@@nobody.of.importance uhh you remember Jan 6? Now imagine that they WANT an excuse to hurt you instead of being on your side. Also they literally have tanks and other military grade weaponry to "enforce peace"
I don't think a violent coup is actually possible within the US. I truly believe that if it was attempted, it would near INSTANTLY break down into anarchy and chaos, and I would wager that those with the most guns are not the ones that will be pushing for the most egalitarian system they can...
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.
Where are you? I miss you! Hope you're doing well. ❤
Yes another new video!!!! Love her content
No wonder our Democracy is now flooded by special interest funding. Corporations now get better representation than everyday Americans do.
Appreciate how she points out democratic judges that also abuse their power. An ethics code should be a bipartisan effort.
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.
I am beginning to think that what lawyers call an "independent" judiciary is really just an "unaccountable" judiciary. I really think that Congress should put a hard limit on the fees and levies that courts can impose on things like filing motions and supplement that lost revenue from the treasury. I also believe that the Supreme Court decided to make itself political when it ruled the way that it did in Marbury v. Madison.
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.
where are u girl, we miss u 😢
Bravo. Very glad this channel showed up in my feed this week. Keep up the good work.
Maybe a code of ethics should be written by someone with... y'know, _ethics._
We have the best government money can buy.
-- Will Rogers
Writing your own rules is ridiculous 😅on its face, without high education or positions.
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
Where is Leeja?
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.
The same code of conduct needs to be applied and required for the SCOTUS
Expand the Supreme Court to 15 justices.
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
This whole thing is the equivalency of corporations being able to self regulate themselves in the interest of the public. It never works. They always create rules, which they don’t really have to do anything, and they redefined the terms and conditions or definitions, for which things apply thus making it where they really don’t have to do anything different at all.
Additionally, I want to say that almost every major profession in the United States, has a code of ethics that they must adhere to. Most of the ones that I’m familiar with have continuing education credits that must be accumulated throughout a given year and part of those credits include ethical evaluation’s.
Given that the body that would enforce any code of conduct on the court would either be the court itself or congress, I don't think we can expect much to be done to fix this. I know there are downsides to the tactic, but honestly I think it is time to reduce the harms any one corrupt justice can inflict by packing the court. Double it in size so that the cost to influence a decision is at least significantly higher. Plus if Biden were to pack the court today, it would at least bring the political views of the court marginally closer to being in-line with popular opinion instead of being drastically more right-wing than the people want.
He _should_ have packed the court the moment it seemed like Roe v. Wade was going to be re-examined. The harms caused by that one decision outweigh anything that packing the court could do.
Dig the casual look, Leeja. Keep rockin.
"And third, the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules" -Captain Barbossa (The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, 2003)
Haven't heard from you for a while. Are you okay?
Come back Leeja! I miss seeing new videos from you!
I have a love-hate relationship with your channel. Our politics are really, really different, but I appreciate and respect the quality of your research and philosophical consistency of your commentary. Thanks for doing this.
Katie Porter for President.
Leeaja Miller V.P.
The Ethics code ought to include the SCOTUS Justices !
where are you leeja?
Well that's infuriating.
Establishing this ethics code, albeit necessary, is too little, too late. The recent lavish excursions and ties with billionaires by Justices aren't just troubling; they erode the very foundation of public trust. Self-regulation without external oversight is a flawed approach, allowing biases and self-interest to seep into what should be impartial decision-making. The debate over Congress's authority in this matter also seems like a diversion from the real issue. The Supreme Court should not be beyond external ethical oversight but it’s high time for *externally enforced* ethical standards to ensure the court operates with the integrity and impartiality it's supposed to uphold.
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...
Excellent work, as always.
Coming Up Next: Foxes Guarding Henhouses -- Brilliant Idea or Misplaced Trust?
8:22 every lawyer watching this cringing when she says attorney-client privilege instead of confidentiality. The duty of confidentiality is an ethical duty that is separate and distinct but related to the evidentiary rule of attorney-client privilege.
I sincerely appreciate the information that you share with us, and still keep to your code. It’s faith restoring ❤
The Value of GIFTING justice is millions per year....
Miss your content
My problem with the current supreme court isn't their lack of an ethics code (I never expected them to have much of one), it's that they ignore precedent _and the words of the laws themselves_ to impose their views from the bench.
They're the Supreme Court. They decide what's precedent, and if they want to change it, they can. That's what they're supposed to do. That's why Plessy v. Ferguson is no longer law. Every major social advance in this country happened because the Superme Court reversed a precedent.
@@leobigelow7021you're right, but now they're taking rights away- not adding to our rights. We're devolving legally- going backwards morally- human rights-wise abortion is an ethical necessity.
Something religious fundamentalists can't see .
Glad for intelligent informative content on the Web. Very thankful for your sharing! 👍🙏❤️😊
I want to support an ethics code though it is a double edged sword. I think they're more insulated than Leeja lays out. They're only looking at each other for their choices and norms. A drop of speculation, they think of themselves as mental giants (which was mentioned) but I also think they look at each other and think, "no one else recuses, i don't wanna be that guy(or girl)". It could also be used against one another and twisted to protect those who are actually breaking the rules.
One thing that could resolve some of the issue is diluting the court. Additional justices seem to only be brought up when they reach a horrible conclusion but we need to think about it in general. 1869, ffs, a quick Google found this little fun fact about that year "Elizabeth Cady Stanton becomes the first woman to testify before the United States Congress". Anyways, more justices would allow a justice to recuse when they should (if they don't it wouldn't also be as big of a deal, the numbers take care of that). But still.. blah blah, we need more representatives to match our population, blah blah. Reeks of number limits to maintain power and there's some kind of wink and nod agreement to not mess with one another.
Question for lawyers: why list things as "should" in the law or a code if it is not binding? Why not just not list it?
This was such a good video. Just like all your videos, this video doesn’t discriminate. You are so good at showing both sides (meaning calling out both liberal and conservative judges). I’m very liberal, but I really appreciate being able to see both sides. And see the unethical things that both sides are doing. It’s such a balanced approach that very few are actually doing. Thank you so much for your videos Leeja!
29:10 they talk about separation of powers like it means that the branches should interfere with eachother when that's exactly what it was created for
You still here @leejamiller?
When I was held to a higher standard as a friggen' sergeant than the SCOTUS...
I have little respect for the military, but I respect most of the people in it (as well as vets, ofc). Our government has you guys do awful shit, and then y'all get all the blame for it. Glad you made it out okay, I hear it can be very VERY scary sometimes.
Did you stop making content? 😢