Justice Elena Kagan on Possible Code of Ethics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 авг 2023
- Justice Elena Kagan: "It just can't be that the Court is the only institution that somehow is not subject to any checks and balances from anybody else. I mean, we're not imperial...So, can Congress do various things to regulate the Supreme Court? I think the answer is yes."
Download the FREE C-SPAN Now App. www.c-span.org/c-spanNow/
Discover the C-SPAN Video Library at www.c-span.org/quickguide/
Explore C-SPAN's Free Educational Resources at www.c-span.org/classroom/
C-SPAN: Created by Cable in 1979. Offered as a public service.
Support C-SPAN by Donating Today: donorbox.org/support-c-span?u...
Subscribe to our RUclips channel: / cspan
Follow us:
Facebook: / cspan
Twitter: / cspan
Instagram: / cspan
Subscribe:
C-SPAN Podcasts: www.c-span.org/podcasts/
Newsletters: www.c-span.org/connect/
#cspan
They absolutely should adopt the federal judges code of ethics that is already in place.
And performance reviews
@@ahzzz-realmI’m curious. what kind of metric would evaluate their performance?
@@kesagatame dunno, maybe some kind of overall comparison of previous rulings by a changing smorgasbord of reviewers providing feed back to the court that they are required to respond to.
@@ahzzz-realm that defeats the purpose of the Court. And what time in history would you compare rulings to? Most Americans would agree that the Court has ruled in ways that don't seem to honor the rights of citizens in one way or the other over the last 2 centuries.
But also enforce it,with criminal charges if they disobey.
I would lose my current employment if anyone with potential business links to me would pay for lavish entertainment,let alone buying my mother’s house and letting her live their rent free. What are these people thinking??
Iunderstand and yes - and the interviewer should lose her job because how she asked the question with knowing looks at the audience indicated a preconceived notion. Something about asking questions objectively would have been better in my opinion.
"Nine free-thinking individuals?" Really? Thomas's "thinking" isn't "free" --ask Crow how much it costs.
Ding!!! Ding!!! Ding!!! We have our early evening BINGO!!!! You win 2 cans of pringles!!!! Not picking on you. More people need to grasp the evil that exists with the men and women making the laws for "ALL" in this nation! Tailored to others paid for expectations.
What did Crow pay for? What cases of his were directly affected by Thomas' decision? I'll wait
@@marvinjc3296instead of waiting for sometime to spoon feed you information, go look for yourself. Be sure to not be stupid about it, and understand what taxes are, what shelters are, what corporations are, and how decisions have ripple effects. Oh, also consider that the parties inolved might be smart enough to not be blatant about it. Check decisions affecting corporations that were subsequently taken over by these parties. Check decisions that affected industry regulations of the parties involved. Etc. Don't be willfully ignorant.
Come back and report on your findings. I'll wait.
I don't know what the hell people are laughing about. These are the most serious questions of our time. Every single court in the USA has to .. is bound to BY LAW .. operate under a well-defined code of ethics. Except for one. The most important court in the land. A court with judges that, at least some of them, thinks they are a branch of government ABOVE Congressional oversight. In other words, literally above the law.
And the NEW NORMAL for SCOTUS appointment doesn’t include decades of judicial record, absence of invisible billionaire or skewed political backing. Voluntarily ethical behavior is no longer the norm. And was anyone under oath when they signed the Chief Justice’s statement? Naw. Not even sure if some Justices even think they should be held to any standard.
Nobody is above the law. Lead by example.
Nearly all of the people telling you to think that are literal criminals. In some cases war criminals. This is a flagrant attempt to interfere with the supreme court. Every last congressman and woman takes dark money. All of them use stocks illegally according to their own code of so called ‘ethics’. You are incapable of maintaining your position. And you have officially lost this debate. And so did this frumpy low iq charlatan in this video
The bottom line is that we should look up to the top court of the land instead of being embarrassed that many are on the dole. If the consequences for these actions is just a slap on the wrist, then I wonder why any of us needs to consider the ethics of our actions.
Yeah, don't let government officials be your guide post on your behavior.
The air of tip-toeing about on this matter is absurd. I'm taken aback by the Supreme Court justices speaking as they are kindly following rules, as if it's an option they would be subject to external review. As we are sorely learning now, no one is above the law, not even the Supreme Court justices. (Clarence Thomas like to be first case example to exercise these ideas!)
Can any one of the three brnches of government place a code of conduct on any other? Can any branch of the government help friends and families to inside information without it being a legal and/or ethicsal problem? Just trying to figure this out as to the powers and limits of each branch.
@@lucillejerome5511because Congress actually created the supreme Court, as kagan said it is in the Constitution, as kagan said it is in the Constitution that Congress has the ability to shape and define the Court's role. The supreme Court is the only court that does not have to answer to the code of ethics that is put on every other judge in America they should at least have to follow the same rules as everyone else right now they are above the law
I am so irritated. The Court has subjected itself to ethical rules? Like the robber barons did in the running of the railroads in the 19th century. Nor have they reported their unreported, opulent gifts to the IRS as income.
While I can’t see myself agreeing with any of her judicial decisions, I can’t find any wrong with her answer.
She word-salad'ed you. The answer should've been simple, NO. The long answer is. The Constitution is the supreme Courts code of ethics, Congress can change the Constitution, that's it. Good luck getting 2/3s of anything.
Nope. She was deferring to the institution while hoping some real actions will not force other branches to act. Wide latitude has been extended by all for far too long. Even the assumption of competence and deference to expertise, when deciding about Exec decisions, was proven to be outdated over the past few decades. And we knew this court cares not one wit for precedence or the benefit of the people as individuals.
Definitely should be a code of ethics that the SC adheres to - this shouldn’t be voluntary.
I do believe that the Court should abide by high ethical standards but it's laughable that Congress is the body scrutinizing the court based on the unethical lapses of many of its leaders and members.
The checks and balances is a nice ideal , but atlas in reality there is little or no checks and balances on government, politicians and judges .
That why the federal government is out of control, violating civil rights left, right and centre !
As long as congress doesn’t interfere with their justices primary job
They should have to recuse themselves from helping friends family and their businesses if they come before the court
They won't *_"HAVE"_* to if there is no code of ethics that compels them to.
She is answering from the perspective of a progressive on the court. What regulations on the court beyond the “good behavior “ clause of the constitution amounts to tools to control the ruling outcomes. Withholding funding would be for what purpose? To control. Changing the structure has what purpose? To change the political outcomes, FDR did this to get his way which is tyrannical or at least cutesy at the least. Interesting that congress would limit any legal outside activities of the courts when they themselves enrich themselves at every turn. That said, they should self regulate for appearances so the people have confidence in them. That however will not stop any criticisms that are designed to weaken the credibility of the courts regardless. Mainly by the politicians on the left.
Some of the current members of the court clearly cannot be relied upon to "self regulate". And one does not have to level criticism "designed to weaken the credibility of the court" when the mere reporting of the facts is damning enough.
Regulations such as requiring a justice to recuse when their spouse is involved in a case before the court (as opposed to leaving it up to the justice's "judgement") is not controlling the ruling outcome unless you are suggesting that the justices are voting their politics and that corruption is heavily one sided.
Oh--as you are clearly a conservative I can understand your concern.
@@csm92459 Are you saying that I can’t be a liberal and be honest or balanced? The problem we are mainly having is the news media seemingly has a one way magnifying glass. Do the work. Turn it over and find that at least two liberal judges have engaged in similar actions with no attention being drawn to them. Keagan did it personally and never recused herself from a case. I wish they could recuse because their spouses had political views, but there would be no married people on the bench. I know you disagree so I guess we are stuck following the law if that’s ok. Thanks.
@@realtalk7547 I honestly have no idea what you are saying.
I'm saying that the conservative judges have proven they have no interest in self regulation or rendering a decision that isn't based on conservative political agendas.
@@csm92459 you are entitled to your opinion about the conservatives on the court, but actually based on their own admission the liberals, Sotomayor anyway, believe in a “living” constitution that they can bypass Article 5 that allows that the legislature amends the constitution. She said that she can look at society and alter her interpretation to suit that change. That is a barn door to make it say anything and dangerous to us. If Roe is your beef, they sent it back to the state because it was never in the constitution like slavery was not and had to be amended after Dread Scott. That was a democratic lead Supreme Court thing. I’m for the constitution and not for rogue justices of either ilk. Thanks
@@realtalk7547 The constitution is a living document. If the founders had expected it to be unchanging they wouldn't have written the instructions on how to change in in the original document.
I'm for the constitution and the underwriting principles laid out in the Preamble. I'm also for the 9th amendment--"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The principle "All men are created equal" means, at least to me, that the idea that we should have citizens (states) voting on who is entitled to which rights is revolting. (It should be no surprise to us that the conservative justices on SCOTUS seem to hate the 9A--at least as far as it applies to the marginalized in the population.)
The Dobbs decisions was a ruling shopping for a case. If Roe had been codified Alito would have found a note from the laundress on the Mayflower that he would claim was "proof" that the country was Christian and the founders "pro-life" according to whatever theological voodoo he has been told to operate from.
Alito & Thomas should both be impeached and removed.
Totally agree....they are so corrupt
@@dwr1611 Name a single thing you can verify incontestably
Jackson, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Roberts are the unconstitutional ones. I'll be happy to sit here and embarrass the fool out of you in a debate about anything to do with the law in this country.
@me
@@horustrismegistus1017 what do you mean....taking lavish vacations from billionaires (among other things) is just for friendship? At my work (as a low level employee) if i take anything more than probably something like $100 worth of gifts, i would be fired
I can’t wrap my brain around why SCOTUS is even exempt from Fed judiciary’s rules anyway.
Absolutely 💯 Thank you Justice Kagan. We the people SCOTUS serves are with you.💙Kagan for Head Justice because Justice is SCOTUS duty.
What I "Listen Catholic to" is within a medical Treatment in Entertainment Law.
It really should be a Constitutional Amendment adding to Article III
But what does the Court do when a Justice breaks that code of conduct ?
DNA mapping is Entertainment First as a Value.
Who is going to be the judge on what Congress can impose on the Supreme Court?
I am a Photographer. You are ENTERTAINMENT first......My Health under your Choice.
The Cleveland Clinic, Van a Nurse and Such bad treatment.
My Mom thought I was Special. What is "Healing Anointed Acting"? Data of cures. Numbers of cures from Acting.
What medications arelegal heroin? Doctor , on a stand? Just explaining the FDA.....
Do you Think , Mercy has "Anoited Acting Mantle Healing"?
Lifetime appointments for people we don't vote for that have little to no rules...merica
what a great news channel !!!! IM BE IN LONDON TOMORROW WAS SUPPOSED TO BE TODAY
I don’t know who she is but basically that whole answer was “we’re going to continue doing what we want, how we want, so everybody can get lost”!
I am not sure you heard what I heard.
Sorry i fell asleep, are they going to Get a Code of Ethics or not?
What is Generational Healing AS a Promise, Then Your Data?
Scott Jones who lived at my apartment when getting his Law Degree, family exclusive, .....
The assumption of levels of Court is not a reality. Attorney General of MI. Days of non residence . Asa Hutchinson, quoted and owned Deuteronmy, 32: 12-14.
Talk in circles
You are DAILY on a CS Lewis megaphone defining MY meaning in your Eyes. No Song.
You are Dealing Cards, WITH the words Sin and Science.
My social media, apart from Melbering, is not Bible quoting power?
Awesome 👏
My God!
👍 👏👏👏👏👏!
Reform ........? In Spain???????????? Entertaining
Tonight MY phone, Can be HIS photo????????
She seems cool. 😂 some kid called me that today.
I do not fear You.
She doesnt know the exact words of the constitution? Imagine that.
What a terrible answer. She should have simply said "Yes, we should be Constitutionally bound by the same legal ethics code as any oother judge in America".
I think Justice Kagan's answer was pure waffle. She obviously seems to believe that the SCOTUS gets to decide for itself whether to adopt a code of conduct and/or ethics. Who else gets to make up their own rules?
Lol, It thought this was the Sagan family line, but ofc a K is not a S. 😂
You are not fingerprints.
with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of grapes. OLD TESTAMENT poetry? I am not a poet. I have Never infrim my heart Desired Theater as a Profession.
Entertainment FIRST. Agenda.
Kidneys are Wheat.
Resurrection Power is the American Promise????? I have No idea........
Entertainment , Male Criminals and????? Neck first .......YOU are not Okay. To be doing this.......
I have always loved Elena Kagan and Sotomayer! My two favorite Justices! Hands down!
All the ladies on the court are good
@@adventuresinthebay8487
Who ever said they weren’t?
@@MissJade805 No one did - she just listed her favorites that's all.
"We're NOT imperial". Nough said.
Jumanji Jackson brown should be impeached
Word salad
Is Sarah Sanders onyour Stage Shakespeare?
If, in the present time, groupings such as House + Senate (next Only Congress) + Executive Branch (next Only WH / White House), with their signatures put into force the new law and regulations of the US Supreme Court (next Only SCOTUS), it will open a precedent for what that then, in terms of Justice and the US Constitution, grouping such as SCOTUS + Congress can adopt a new law on WH Regulation, or a WH + SCOTUS grouping can adopt a new law on Congress Regulation. This can easily happen after the 2024 election, when it is assumed that the GOP will be in control of all 3 Power Branches! And I agree, this shall be done ✅ because of more better Check and Balances decided by the peoples not by power abusing, dictate or stalemating governments branches ! God Bless America!
ten minutes of saying a whole lot of nothing, thank you justice kagan
Bobbie Treece i herotence pans.....? Sarcasm in private verses public sarcasm in Psychology! The Psychology of Voting as You ambition.
It should be for congress to have ethics classes starting with Pelosi.
Unqualified
I find it offensive that she doesn't have the Constitution memorized (2:03). It isn't that long. You can read the entire thing in about 20 minutes. I've seen actors memorize scripts that are ten times longer. I've even seen actors recite back portions of dialog that aren't even in their native language YEARS after they played the role. You can get a "pocket Constitution" for exactly this reason. It just isn't a very long document. If you are A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE .. you should know every word by heart .. chapter & verse .. as it were. Waving her hands around .. _"uhhh, it says something like"_ so dismissively accepting her ignorance of what it actually DOES say .. honestly I think it should be disqualifying for a Supreme Court Justice.
I find offensive your misrepresenting facts and demanding unreasonable things of another person. The Constitution is over 4.5k words long, nearly 7.6k words if you count all the amendments to it. At an average speaking rate of 150 wpm, you're asking her to be able to recite verbatim 30 minutes (4500/150) or 50 minutes (7500/150) worth of dry, outdated English. What you're wanting out of her is to be able to parrot the document - and anyone with an outstanding memory (and or sinking days, weeks, or even months into it) could do it... without ever understanding the text. By putting it in her own words, paraphrasing it from her recollection, she's actually demonstrating actual understanding of the meaning behind it which is BY FAR more essential to her job - it's literally the defined job description (*interpreting* laws). If she needs exact wording, like everyone in the legal world does, she can just look it up. So yeah, how dare she not have a photographic memory!
Well that would have kept Barrett off the court. She couldn't recall the protections enumerated in the 1A
@@csm92459 I agree 100%. She has no business being a Supreme Court Justice. She openly and intentionally lied to Congress, under oath, which .. is a crime. She belongs in jail, if anywhere.
@@THE-X-Force the lot of them did lie. That should be grounds for at least immediate removal, if not criminal liability.... sadly the rich and connected get free passes until feet get held to the fire by the masses...
(edit: added clarification that I meant the lot who *lied*)
Man, judges have to read a looot of things outside the Constitution. Like statutes, case precedent, parties' briefs etc.. I would honestly give them a break. As a judge or lawyer, you're not meant to memorize the law word for word, as that in itself would be futile, but rather know to apply the law to the controversy at hand. This is the reason why written materials exist - so that you wouldn't have the need to know every single letter of the law off by heart.
Application >>> Memorization
January 20, 2021. Other part of Hill. Consider the source of comments on ethics. I am Metacom’s Heir.
With no enforcement nor consequences
Amos 9:8 Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon ....ITALO CALVINO not your nar issictic Irving Stone Zurbaran fan , "Relying on exotic signs(Legal bried submitting by George W Bush) he is much like the characters in "the castle of crossed destinies" forced to communities with tarot cards." The Suprme Court is not Mitt Romney at Notre Dame.
Expand or dissolve the court.
It brought cue cards.
I have no idea what yhe f she is talking about
Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; Pr 1; 24-26
...wasn't the book kicked out of schools 60 years ago? ... by the Supreme Court? ...fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Fear, and the pit, and the snare are upon thee, O inhabitant of the earth. Isaiah 24;17
Kagan on ethics? Kind of like biden on who should shower with whom.
Kind of like Thomas or Alito deciding people's rights
@@PierrePavia whichever rights you speak of, where is that right spoken of in the US constitution?
What does the 10th amendment to the US Constitution say?
For instance, where is the abortion rights clause in the US constitution? It doesn’t exist.
What does the 10 the amendment state? Abortion is a states rights issue since it is not in the constitution.
The Supreme Court did not ban or overturn abortion rights. It turned abortion back to the individual states where it belongs.
Any woman can still get an abortion in any state and in some of the bluer states will probably be able to abort a child up to ten years old in the future so don’t be too critical of the Supreme Court. They might actually be doing you a favor depending on how cold the ice water in your veins is and if you live in a blue enough state.
Research is our friend and knowledge is power.
@@landonor1 See, suddenly it's not a matter of who they are but of what they are saying. Same goes for the code of ethics, what Kagan says makes sense, and what Senate democrats are trying to do, too.
The checks and balances forbid Congress to decide a case in place of a court, but it enables them to regulate how courts should work. Having a non-supreme judge put a justice on trial for violation of a potential ethics law would be just as constitutional as putting them on trial for beating their wife, what matters is whether the normal judge can overturn the SCOTUS decision, and there's no reason to think they would.
@@PierrePavia so instead of addressing the accusation you leveled against specific (originalist) justices you prefer to shoot word salads about ethics and praise the activist judge.
It’s funny how you blues like the courts as long as they swing in your favor. But let them swing the other way just once and you lose your minds.
Cry more 🍊🤡🐑 loser!
🇺🇸BIDEN🕶2024🇺🇸
🇺🇸Liberal & Progressive Blue Wave too🇺🇸
First of all, please have Kevin James play her on SNL when it's back on...Second, Cut to the chase!....Do you all have the right to take bribes and not have consequences?! So tired of these folks tiptoeing around their own wrongdoing. They're all apparently accepting "questionable" gifts.
Ridiculous. The Supreme Court’s job is to uphold the constitution which of itself is a code of ethics. How about Congress and Senate follow their own code of ethics and stay in their lane. They have a lot of work to do. 3 branches. Stop this crazy partisan narrative.
Thank you - you just answered my earlier question by default
Dipshit--there are checks and balances FOR A REASON. Their "Lane" include certain checks on the judiciary. The constitutions is not a set of ethics--it is blueprint for the makeup of the US government and the separation of powers.
LMAO the partisan narrative of identifying justices for what they are: bought and paid for.
The Supreme Court needs to check the executive powers
a nobody😅
That isnt a woman. That's a man baby.
Thank you, justice Kagan
She word-salad'ed us. The answer should've been simple, NO. The long answer is. The Constitution is the supreme Courts code of ethics, Congress can change the Constitution, that's it. Good luck getting 2/3s of anything.
The Constitution is the code of ethics for the supreme court. Congress can change the Constitution. Thats it.
No, it isn't. There is very little in the constitution thar speaks directly and precisely to ethics or judicial conduct.
@@chrisester2910 wtf did I just say. I literally said in my comment. If Congress wants to regulate the supreme Court, then they can change the Constitution, but good luck getting 2/3rds. I hope you're a not lawyer or studying to be one.