Clinton, who served as secretary of state under Obama, has said she thinks the Supreme Court should adopt and abide by a code of ethics.
Hillary Clinton, a presidential candidate for the Democrats in 2016, will be a featured speaker at the event. Clinton is a co-founder of the event’s hosting group, Vital Voices, which promotes women’s rights internationally. She panned recent events at the Supreme Court and called for stricter guidelines to be implemented for the justices to follow.
There’s no good reason for them to be the sole American organization without a binding code of ethics.”They’re there for life,” Clinton said on the panel. To paraphrase, “Ethical norms should be in place, and they should be respected.”
Clinton claimed that the controversy surrounding Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas showed that judges needed to be held to a strict code of ethics.
According to ProPublica’s reporting, Harlan Crow, a rich Republican contributor from Dallas, had financed Thomas’s vacations and home purchases, as well as provided private school tuition for the court’s grandnephew, whom the justice had reared “as a son.” Thomas and the rest of the Supreme Court are now under intense scrutiny as a result of this. There was complete silence on Thomas’s travels, finances, and acquisitions.
Clinton said that “other” judges were also involved in the scandals, though she did not name names.
Possible prejudice on the part of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. This has just now come to light. CNN reports that both Sotomayor and Roberts, who have generated money from book deals with Penguin Random House, have declined to recuse themselves from matters involving the company. Lower courts’ verdicts in favor of Penguin Random House were upheld by the Supreme Court, which declined to review the cases.
Since now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer had signed a book deal with the same publishing firm as the other two judges, he recused himself from both cases.
In light of the “every day revelations about what has happened, especially with Justice Thomas, but also with a few others,” Clinton has stated, “Of course, there should be ethical standards, and they should have some weight because of the daily revelations about what has happened.” They need to work with both parties while also being nonpartisan. The rules should be legally obligatory for everyone involved.
Members of Congress from both parties have called for stronger ethical requirements for the justices and their families in light of the recent issues affecting the Supreme Court.
Angus King (I-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have introduced legislation that would mandate a new set of criteria for the judicial system.
Murkowski released a statement reading in part, “The American people have made it clear that they are worried about the Supreme Court and its justices’ lack of transparency.”People’s faith in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low in the United States.
The Senate Judiciary Committee recently extended an invitation to Roberts, but he rejected.
Clinton has also made it clear that she does not agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which reversed Roe v. Wade and said that women had no constitutionally protected right to abortion.
After the Dobbs verdict, some states have implemented legislation criminalizing or severely restricting access to abortion. In response, Clinton remarked, “The kind of draconian measures that are being passed in a number of states are right out of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale.” With the type of practically punishing laws that are being put in place, it’s hard to fathom what 2023 life and options will be like for women in the United States.
There were a number of moral dilemmas that plagued Clinton’s presidential campaign. The most shocking information is that she used a private email account instead of her State Department email while she was in office as secretary of state, which is in direct violation of the law.
The FBI said that despite Clinton and her staff being “extremely careless” with “very sensitive, highly classified information,” “no charges” should be filed against them.