Quote Originally Posted by Cat Mom View Post
Read that article again. Note that it does not say “law” once.

It’s about the canons of ethics. When you become a lawyer, you take an oath to uphold the canons of ethics.

This has been a problem re Justice Thomas for years. The jerk has refused to recuse himself in cases where he clearly should have recused himself. But there’s no teeth to go after him about it, because he’s a SCOTUS Justice.

All of this does not mean “above the law.” It’s a matter of “ethics.” The American Bar Association controls matters of ethics and doles out disciplinary actions for violations. Not necessarily per any statutes (laws), but per the canons of ethics and ABA rules. This article is saying that there is no disciplinary body that deals with ethics and the SCOTUS. Not ILLEGAL ACTIVITY and the SCOTUS, but ethics.
Po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to, I guess.

Well, maybe not. I understand your point, and it makes more sense now. If RBG pistol-whipped a guy she could still be charged with assault. But it still feels like it is, to a certain degree, a bit of an "untouchable" status. Because once they reach the SCOTUS, they're out of the scope of the ABA and it's "ethics be damned". I mean...83 freaking complaints, many of which would have stopped anyone else in any other field from even being hired, let alone keeping a job if they'd come up after the fact, and there's literally nothing that can be done about them. That's maddening. It may not be literally above the law status, but it sure puts them in a much more protected class. Who else receives such a broad scope of protections? Isn't the president himself even open to ethics complaints?