Judicial rot watch: Supreme Court whines about criticism; Comment on jury duty

Jezebel writes:

Sam Alito Says Criticism of Supreme Court Is 'Unfair': 

'Practically Nobody Is Defending Us'

"We are being hammered daily, and I think quite unfairly in some of these instances," the justice complained to the Wall Street Journal amid ethics scandals 

Alito told the Wall Street Journal in an interview published Friday that attacks on the “legitimacy” of the high court are “new during [his] lifetime.”

“We are being hammered daily, and I think quite unfairly in a lot of instances. And nobody, practically nobody, is defending us,” he said. “The idea has always been that judges are not supposed to respond to criticisms, but if the courts are being unfairly attacked, the organized bar will come to their defense.” But “if anything,” the justice continued, “they’ve participated to some degree in these attacks.”

Jaw dropping, cynical arrogance is insufficient to describe that. 

Q: Why would Alito think anyone would step up and defend the indefensible? 

A: Because he is a radical authoritarian who actually, or more likely cynically, believes our unethical and deeply corrupt Supreme Court is ethical and therefore its corruption is actually defensible.

That is not the standard

for the US Supreme Court

It has no moral benchmarks

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

By contrast with Alito's blatantly pro-corruption, anti-democracy mindset, the judge in our dinky little misdemeanor crimes case was a flamethrower about a rigid set ethics that applied to himself, the attorneys, the defendant, witnesses, the bailiffs, the court reporter and us jurors. The slightest hint of any appearance of favoritism or bias, a form of corruption, had to be immediately reported to the bailiff, who would report it to the judge. Nothing other than people breathing happened in that courtroom until the microphones recording the proceedings were turned back on and the court officially called into question. Nothing was off the record.

When I complained to the bailiff about the lights being too bright for slides to be clearly seen, I had to report it to the bailiff as a juror. The bailiff reported that a juror complained about lights being too bright, but the judge not only didn't know my juror number, he also didn't know my name. 

The judge gave us an example of an example of possible favoritism or bias that had to be reported to him on one of his cases some years ago. This example was trivial, but it still counted. At a break, one juror was in the bathroom with one of the attorneys on the case. The juror said to the attorney that she liked her shoes asked the attorney where she bought them. The attorney, didn't answer, walked out and reported the incident to the bailiff. The problem the attorney had was a catch 22. If she answered, it could bias the juror in favor of that attorney, but if she didn't answer, perceived rudeness could bias the juror against that attorney. 

Now, compare that level of concern for ethical conflicts by a state lower court, with the shocking disregard for ethics by all nine justices sitting on our corrupt, morally rotted US Supreme Court. 

Qs: Is it just me being hyperbolic about corruption, morals and ethics, or is there maybe something more than trivially wrong with our Supreme Court's ethical standards, which BTW, exist only in cynical lip service and no actually meaningful form? Can anyone see the gigantic double standard here?

If the judges are so moral and ethical, why do they resist applying ethics rules to themselves? What manner and amount of sleaze and corruption are they hiding?

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

About rules for judges, apparently except US Supreme Court judges:

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges includes the ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in a variety of outside activities

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities

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

Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity

(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:

(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;

(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or

(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.

(C) Other Political Activity. A judge should not engage in any other political activity. This provision does not prevent a judge from engaging in activities described in Canon 4.

Sounds good in theory. In practice, not so much.