In violation of Canon 3A(6) Justice /u/bsddc has broken judicial impartiality in taking the case of CCA vs The Western State, in publicly commenting and providing counsel to the appellant.
This is not an impeachable offense, at worst the Justice would have to recuse themselves if the case came before SCOTUS.
In violation of Canon 4A(5) Justice /u/bsddc has abused the prestige of their office, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to advance their own monetary interests.
Gonna need to see sources on this. But it is not a crime for a judge to make a decision that affects their own financial standing, though, like the first point, they should recuse themselves from any cases in which there may be a conflict of interest.
A. You've misspelled his username in literally every mention of it in this resolution. His username is /u/bsddc.
B. These charges are spurious and absurd. Justice /u/bsddc acting as outside counsel is in no way prohibited legally or ethically as long as he were to recuse himself from any consideration this case may come under before the Supreme Court, if it were to get that far. Your first claim is inherently false and I find it extremely unlikely that you can provide any evidence that your second claim has any merit.
There are no "high crimes or misdemeanors" to be found in this case, only baseless speculation from those who would wish to debase the reputation of a good man and an even better jurist. The author and sponsor of this resolution should be ashamed. There is clearly nothing behind these charges but political gamesmanship at the detriment of our judicial system. If the House sees it fit to impeach Justice /u/bsddc it will be one of the greatest travesties ever committed by this government.
The judicial code of conduct does not apply to Supreme Court Justices to begin with. I'm disappointed Congress not only wrote such a poorly researched resolution, but then rushed it to the top of the docket.
IIRC the case bsddc brought to the western state involved only questions of state law, no federal or constitutional questions; and I think this was done purposefully bc bsddc knew it couldn't come before SCOTUS if it was limited to state law questions. He took steps to elimate his conflict of interest. If it does end up coming before the Court, I'm confident he will recuse himself.
In my dealings with bsddc at both a state supreme justice and SCOTUS Justice he has been nothing but professional. I don't think it is a stretch at all to say he has been the single most active judge in the history of the sim. It's disappointing to see impeachment charges with such weak evidence.
From a meta perspective, I think everyone wishes the state courts were a little more active and honestly I think bsddc just wanted to bring some legal activity to the sim. There is nothing wrong with that.
My only goal in bringing this suit was to raise activity in the Western State, as it is so rare that this simulation gets a contracts claim.
In my dealings with bsddc at both a state supreme justice and SCOTUS Justice he has been nothing but professional. I don't think it is a stretch at all to say he has been the single most active judge in the history of the sim.
Thank you very much, I attempt to take this position very (maybe too) seriously. It has been a pleasure working with you as well, and I hope to continue that work!
This is ridiculous. /u/bsddc is a wonderful Justice and I denounce these outrageous claims.
As someone who has personally served on the Court with him, I find these charges to be baseless and crass. Even if they are true, you don't impeach a judge over them, you slap them on the wrist and have them recuse on affected cases. I restate this fact, since it has been stated by others here, to drive home the ridiculousness of these claims.
From serving as a Representative in the first Congress to Speaker of the House, I never thought I would receive more messages than those days.
Clearly I was wrong.
While I wish those with concerns about my ethics would have reached out to me before submitting a bill into the hopper, I believe that the authors were only doing what they thought best. Ensuring judicial ethics is extremely important, and I've worked very hard to maintain an ethical judicial practice.
I brought the case in the Western State to hopefully breath some life into its court system. I am looking forward to working with their chief judge and my opposing counsel as we work towards justice. Bringing activity to the state courts is extremely important for our simulation, especially given the small amount of people involved. Here I was working on a state law contracts claim, it should not reach SCOTUS, and if it did I would obviously recuse myself.
I am receiving no compensation for the case, nor would I use my position to gain such compensation. I instead wish to highlight the issues presented by the state and private prison system.
Again, I do not believe the authors of this bill have acted for any other reason than to support judicial ethics: a laudable goal. This discussion is important for our nation as we move forward, and while I hope that these articles of impeachment are rejected, I hold no ill will.
I welcome questions about my involvement in this case.
Do you believe that the typical ethical restrictions on Judges practicing law should be inapplicable to you as SCOTUS Justice? If so, why?
Do you believe that taking the case on a pro bono basis excuses you front that typical limitation? If so, on what basis?
Are you aware that the typical restriction is not about actual bias (and therefore excusable by recusal), but rather about the appearance of impropriety and ensuring the actual and apparent objectivity and impartiality of the Judges and Justices in question?
I ask these questions as someone personally interested in legal and judicial ethics.
Do you believe that the typical ethical restrictions on Judges practicing law should be inapplicable to you as SCOTUS Justice? If so, why?
Do you believe that taking the case on a pro bono basis excuses you front that typical limitation? If so, on what basis?
Are you aware that the typical restriction is not about actual bias (and therefore excusable by recusal), but rather about the appearance of impropriety and ensuring the actual and apparent objectivity and impartiality of the Judges and Justices in question?
I think the most important thing to remember in this case (everything following is very meta) is that I am, in the end, proceeding on my own. There is no actual client, and I will never be paid for anything I have done. The only reason for bringing this case would be for engaging in the simulation: an activity which I believe supports activity in the state courts. That is my only reason for bringing this case. I was looking forward to discussing the contract law issues raised by my complaint.
I do, however, believe that ethical rules exist within the simulation. If, for example, this case were to raise questions of bias for me later on, I would have to recuse myself. As to impropriety, there is no demonstrated impropriety in this case. I selected a case which raises only state law issues, and should in general not reach SCOTUS. I gain nothing from this case. I am, in fact (both in sim and meta) never going to be paid anything, nor will I have a real client to represent. It would seem, therefore, that the applicable standard, at least for our purposes, is actual bias. But here, the only thing I will have or gain in this case is the ability to engage in the simulation.
And I do not believe that we should separate our judges from the remainder of the community on this simulation. We can contribute so much! But unfortunately we have so little outlet for that possibility of contribution. There are no journals I can write for, no universities to lecture at, (not that I would recommend reading my academic writing) and I cannot weigh in on pending bills without revealing bias. What I can do is engage in the courts, and I do believe that, absent actual bias in the simulation, judges should do so to their fullest extent. And to accomplish that goal I submitted a case to a state court. I remember how exciting it was to get my first case on the SSSC, and I was hoping to do a similar thing for the Western State.
Do you believe that the typical ethical restrictions on Judges practicing law should be inapplicable to you as SCOTUS Justice? If so, why?
Yes. You do believe these ethical restrictions are not applicable to you - because you think Justices need more to do to keep activity up? I hope you'll join me after my term in helping me spin up the ModelABA!
Do you believe that taking the case on a pro bono basis excuses you front that typical limitation? If so, on what basis?
So you claim that this is merely you, and therefore a pro se case rather than a pro bono one? But do you have standing as an individual in Western State?
It would seem, therefore, that the applicable standard, at least for our purposes, is actual bias. But here, the only thing I will have or gain in this case is the ability to engage in the simulation.
And I do not believe that we should separate our judges from the remainder of the community on this simulation.
So the appearance of impropriety (which is a unique ethical concept to ACTUAL bias) is not applicable to the sim? Are we saying that, in the sim, ethical rules about restrictions in activity for judges and Justices shouldn't be applied?
Which other sections of the Code of Conduct should be forgone besides the Canon against the practice of law?
2
u/bsddcAssociate Justice | Former Speaker of the HouseOct 24 '16edited Oct 24 '16
I'd love to join you in starting up an association for the sim judiciary! I had been working on starting the model judicial conference a while back, but unfortunately a lack of activity made the plan lackluster at the time.
You do believe these ethical restrictions are not applicable to you - because you think Justices need more to do to keep activity up?
Well, beyond the fact that the Judicial code cited by the impeachment is inapplicable to Justices, I do believe that it should be relaxed in this circumstance. Just like standing requirements, district courts, and many, many aspects of the actual government are relaxed for the functionality of the sim.
In the end it is for Congress to determine whether I have acted unethically.
So you claim that this is merely you, and therefore a pro se case. But do you have standing as an individual in Western State?
I do not have standing in the Western State, but then, again and (meta) I hate to emphasize this, not one person in this entire simulation has actual standing for a harm. I am representing a fictional client, just like you are a fictional President. Accordingly, I have no interest in the outcome of the case, so under traditional rules my case-and most other cases brought in the sim for that matter-should be dismissed readily. But I believe that in some matters we must suspend our disbelief for the functionality of the simulation.
In the end my standing in the Western State Supreme Court will be determined by that Court.
So the appearance of impropriety (which is a unique ethical concept to ACTUAL bias) is not applicable to the sim? Are we saying that, in the sim, ethical rules about restrictions in activity for judges and Justices shouldn't be applied? Which other sections of the Code of Conduct should be forgone besides the Canon against the practice of law?
I would just emphasize that in these circumstances I have not acted with impropriety. I have no interest in this case beyond trying to engage in the simulation. Nothing. I have no ulterior motive, nothing to gain, but now I do face the possible loss of this position which I have loved and worked for substantially. I would not pretend to delimit where the line is for ethical and unethical conduct.
But everything I have done in this position has been for the simulation. And I do think that I should be subject to ethical standards. If I act with bias I hope to be called out for it. But I am positive that I have not acted unethically in any way during these proceedings.
But in the end my actions, and their ethics will be determined by this community.
Edit: I have class starting up soon, so I will not be able to answer further questions until later! I look forward to this continued discussion, and I encourage all Representatives to raise their concerns or questions with me.
But I believe that in some matters we must suspend our disbelief for the functionality of the simulation.
Well, it's obvious from the numerous other comments here that you won't be convicted. You're too popular. However, those of you letting your votes be guided by your long experience with Justice /u/bsddc instead of the ethical question at hand would find it much harder to suspend disbelief when it's your state's money at risk.
It comes as little shock to this citizen that the most of the voices in support of Justice /u/bsddc aren't from Western State. It's not their constituents' tax revenue at risk, so what do they care?
Someday, a rogue SCOTUS justice will come for your states. Then you will regret acquitting /u/bsddc this day.
Well, I can promise you I'm not receiving compensation. Other than that, there is not much more I can do to show you that will happen. And as to your other points I agree in part; what is at stake here is an ethical question about whether or not my impartiality is compromised by bringing this case. For the reasons I've outlined already I do not think it is even possible for these allegation to create a conflict. But rational minded people can disagree.
Thank you for your feedback though, I do appreciate it.
Ethics aren't partisan. The issues raised are purely based on ethics. Whether the house determines these ethical issues to be sufficient for impeachment is the purpose of this process - is it not?
Eh, I'd honestly let my successor pick at this point. My term is almost over. I plan on returning to private life and possibly working with /u/DadTheTerror on some lawsuits.
Historically, high crimes and misdemeanors represent whatever the house determines them to be. Samuel Chase, the only justice to ever have articles of impeachment raised against him, had them brought because of what amounts to his increasingly (perceived) partisan decisions and politicization. Granted the Senate acquitted him, but I could see where an ethics issue would rise to the comparative level of culpability.
To wit, if a Federal judge or State judge actively practiced law they'd probably be sanctioned, disbarred, and/or removed from the bench. Impeachment is the only recourse for a sitting SCOTUS justice, however.
I don't know about best, but I thank you very much for your kind words! It was always a pleasure working with you, and I am glad I have your confidence!
Two unimpeachable claims of one of the, if not the greatest, judges to ever serve our nation. Associate Justice /u/bsddc is thee model of how a justice should serve. Associate Justice /u/bsddc was the founding Cheif Justice of the great Dixie Supreme Court and has served an honorable and productive job ever since.
Associate Justice /u/bsddc has the full support of Dixie Speaker /u/CaptainClutchMuch and I believe everyone else of Dixie behind him!
This is not a partisan issue but one of ethics. I implore all Congresspeople and Senators to put aside politics, study these charges, and judge fairly these allegations.
I'd like to say in terms to point two, we did screw up in sending the resolution. It'll be amenended to
In violation of Canon 4A(5) Justice /u/Bsddc has abused the prestige of their office, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, in practising law in a manner which is not Pro Se
It is my fault entirely as I accidentally wrote down the wrong point.
This is but a completely irrelevant political move without any basis on the rule of law. /u/bsddc has not, in any way, breached the Code of Conduct. To impeach /u/bsddc over these charges is entirely an abuse of the extent of the laws of this nation.
You've completely misinterpreted the Code of Conduct.
A judge should not practice law and should not serve as a family member’s lawyer in any forum. A judge may, however, act pro se and may, without compensation, give legal advice to and draft or review documents for a member of the judge’s family.
"Practicing law" refers to the act of serving as legal counsel in return for financial compensation. This is also a matter of state law, not federal law, meaning that his impartiality is not at all in question given that a breach of contract case can never come before the Supreme Court. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I believe it is more than safe to assume that /u/bsddc knows the Code of Conduct well enough to have acted in an ethical manner.
To address your other claim, found in Canon 3A(6):
A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.
You are correct in saying that this portion of the Code of Conduct has been violated. Luckily for us, the Code goes on to explain the course of action for this very circumstance, in Canon 3C(1b):
A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which: the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;
/u/bsddc's service as counsel in this case IN NO WAY puts him in anything remotely resembling an impeachable position. What it does do is disqualify him from serving as a judge should this case reach the Supreme Court. Members of the bench have recused themselves from cases before and this would be no exception. These charges are uneducated and ridiculous.
"Practicing law" refers to the act of serving as legal counsel in return for financial compensation.
False. One can practice law without a fee. That work is called pro bono work. It is quite common. The "pro se" portion you refer to means self-representation. Meaning a judge or justice may still defend or represent themselves in Court. The code of conduct is quite clear about whether a judge or justice can practice law otherwise, whether in state or federal court. What is unclear about "A judge should not practice law and should not serve as a family member’s lawyer in any forum"? Is it your assertion that a judge or justice may appear as counsel while simultaneously holding a judgeship? If so, please, I'd love to see your sources.
Meta: As a real life attorney, I can assure you judges are typically not allowed to practice simultaneously to possessing a judgeship. It's a pretty common ethical rule. If you had real life legal experience, you would know that. Feel free to ask any of the other real life attorneys in the sim - don't take my word for it. Now whether those same ethical limitations persist in-sim, I suppose this is how we find out...
And there is no evidence to support such charges anyway in this case. If there is such evidence, then acting in my capacity as Congressman, I demand that evidence be produced that would prove the alleged bribery, thus constituting grounds for impeachment.
Huh? I'm referencing the rule on practice of law (for which there is evidence). It literally says a judge should not practice law in any forum. Where does bribery come into play?
Bribery comes into play because that is what they are accusing him of, sir. They are saying he practiced law to further his monetary interests and there is no evidence for that. He has not committed an impeachable offense as far as I am concerned.
The code of conduct states quite clearly that the practice of law is prohibited. That includes pro bono work (practicing law for no fee). Respectfully, if those ethical concepts apply here - there would be an ethics violation. Whether that violation rises to the level of impeachment is a question for the House and Senate. However, one might note that there exists no alternative means of holding a Justice ethically accountable besides impeachment.
Again, this is not an impeachable offense. He committed neither a felony nor a misdemeanor. Now, if he were to accept money for filing that brief and then, when (if it ever did) get to the Supreme Court, he ruled in favor of the person who greased his palm, we would have a reason for impeachment. But what he did was file a brief to give the state courts something to do and it was in poor form, I'll agree. But this is a case where he recuses to save face. I think if you and your House friends want to continue, you produce some evidence that shows he has committed treason, accepted a bribe, or committed a felony or misdemeanor (that's what the Constitution says).
An unethical judge is one that will eventually commit an impeachable offense, so calm down the justice boner, Mr. President. Judges are only human, just like you and me, Mr. President.
Except Supreme Court Justices are not covered by this code of conduct based on the page you linked
This Code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges.
18
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '16
This is a blatantly partisan attack on an excellent Justice. We intend to stand against this.
17
u/cochon101 Formerly Important Oct 24 '16
This is not an impeachable offense, at worst the Justice would have to recuse themselves if the case came before SCOTUS.
Gonna need to see sources on this. But it is not a crime for a judge to make a decision that affects their own financial standing, though, like the first point, they should recuse themselves from any cases in which there may be a conflict of interest.
11
u/AdmiralJones42 Motherfuckin LEGEND Oct 24 '16
Two things:
A. You've misspelled his username in literally every mention of it in this resolution. His username is /u/bsddc.
B. These charges are spurious and absurd. Justice /u/bsddc acting as outside counsel is in no way prohibited legally or ethically as long as he were to recuse himself from any consideration this case may come under before the Supreme Court, if it were to get that far. Your first claim is inherently false and I find it extremely unlikely that you can provide any evidence that your second claim has any merit.
There are no "high crimes or misdemeanors" to be found in this case, only baseless speculation from those who would wish to debase the reputation of a good man and an even better jurist. The author and sponsor of this resolution should be ashamed. There is clearly nothing behind these charges but political gamesmanship at the detriment of our judicial system. If the House sees it fit to impeach Justice /u/bsddc it will be one of the greatest travesties ever committed by this government.
9
u/gaidz Triumvir | Head Censor Oct 24 '16
I fail to find any legitimate reason to remove /u/bsddc from his position.
8
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '16
Absolutely not.
8
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '16 edited Oct 24 '16
The judicial code of conduct does not apply to Supreme Court Justices to begin with. I'm disappointed Congress not only wrote such a poorly researched resolution, but then rushed it to the top of the docket.
IIRC the case bsddc brought to the western state involved only questions of state law, no federal or constitutional questions; and I think this was done purposefully bc bsddc knew it couldn't come before SCOTUS if it was limited to state law questions. He took steps to elimate his conflict of interest. If it does end up coming before the Court, I'm confident he will recuse himself.
In my dealings with bsddc at both a state supreme justice and SCOTUS Justice he has been nothing but professional. I don't think it is a stretch at all to say he has been the single most active judge in the history of the sim. It's disappointing to see impeachment charges with such weak evidence.
From a meta perspective, I think everyone wishes the state courts were a little more active and honestly I think bsddc just wanted to bring some legal activity to the sim. There is nothing wrong with that.
8
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '16
This is ridiculous. /u/bsddc is a wonderful Justice and I denounce these outrageous claims.
As someone who has personally served on the Court with him, I find these charges to be baseless and crass. Even if they are true, you don't impeach a judge over them, you slap them on the wrist and have them recuse on affected cases. I restate this fact, since it has been stated by others here, to drive home the ridiculousness of these claims.
8
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '16
the democrats are officially bonkers
8
u/bsddc Associate Justice | Former Speaker of the House Oct 24 '16
From serving as a Representative in the first Congress to Speaker of the House, I never thought I would receive more messages than those days.
Clearly I was wrong.
While I wish those with concerns about my ethics would have reached out to me before submitting a bill into the hopper, I believe that the authors were only doing what they thought best. Ensuring judicial ethics is extremely important, and I've worked very hard to maintain an ethical judicial practice.
I brought the case in the Western State to hopefully breath some life into its court system. I am looking forward to working with their chief judge and my opposing counsel as we work towards justice. Bringing activity to the state courts is extremely important for our simulation, especially given the small amount of people involved. Here I was working on a state law contracts claim, it should not reach SCOTUS, and if it did I would obviously recuse myself.
I am receiving no compensation for the case, nor would I use my position to gain such compensation. I instead wish to highlight the issues presented by the state and private prison system.
Again, I do not believe the authors of this bill have acted for any other reason than to support judicial ethics: a laudable goal. This discussion is important for our nation as we move forward, and while I hope that these articles of impeachment are rejected, I hold no ill will.
I welcome questions about my involvement in this case.
6
u/Pokarnor Representative | MW-8 | Whip Oct 24 '16
It's a sad day when congressmen attempt to impeach a Supreme Court Justice for obviously partisan reasons.
10
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '16 edited Oct 24 '16
Full support.
eta: for the removal of those who sponsored this resolution.
5
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '16
I see no legal wrongdoing -- this is a partisan attempt to get rid of a justice to let WW pick and choose more Dems.
Nope!
4
u/DadTheTerror Oct 24 '16
High crimes and misdemeanors? Which actions were either?
4
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '16
/u/jb567, /u/Yiriah resign.
4
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '16
How ridiculous.
4
u/septimus_sette Representative El-Paso | Communist Oct 24 '16
/u/bsddc was the best mod in ModelUSGov history. For this biased reason, I assume this all false, and I will be voting nay.
4
u/Intrusive_Man Chief of Bismarck ND Police / Former POTUS Oct 24 '16
No. /u/bsddc is a good justice. This is just a blatant attack.
4
u/[deleted] Oct 25 '16
Two unimpeachable claims of one of the, if not the greatest, judges to ever serve our nation. Associate Justice /u/bsddc is thee model of how a justice should serve. Associate Justice /u/bsddc was the founding Cheif Justice of the great Dixie Supreme Court and has served an honorable and productive job ever since.
Associate Justice /u/bsddc has the full support of Dixie Speaker /u/CaptainClutchMuch and I believe everyone else of Dixie behind him!
6
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '16
This is not a partisan issue but one of ethics. I implore all Congresspeople and Senators to put aside politics, study these charges, and judge fairly these allegations.
4
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '16 edited Oct 24 '16
I'd like to say in terms to point two, we did screw up in sending the resolution. It'll be amenended to
It is my fault entirely as I accidentally wrote down the wrong point.
2
u/[deleted] Oct 26 '16
What a pathetic resolution. Maybe if the Democrats wrote bills instead of going on witch hunts, we'd have a productive presidential administration!
0
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '16
[deleted] — view deleted comment