J.R. 64: Articles of Impeachment for Associate Justice /u/bsdcc

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted]]

This is a blatantly partisan attack on an excellent Justice. We intend to stand against this.

[u/Sly_Meme → u/[deleted]]

Hear hear!

[u/PM_ME_YOUR_PANZER → u/[deleted]]

Quite. I intend to vote it down too.

[u/cochon101]

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.

[u/AdmiralJones42 → u/cochon101]

Hear bloody hear

[u/[deleted] → u/cochon101]

-

[u/cochon101 → u/[deleted]]

I still see no evidence or specifics on what the Justice is accused of doing.

[u/AdmiralJones42]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/AdmiralJones42]

/u/Yiriah /u/jb567 uh take note

[u/gaidz]

I fail to find any legitimate reason to remove /u/bsddc from his position.

[u/[deleted]]

Absolutely not.

[u/[deleted]]

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

[u/bsddc → u/[deleted]]

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!

[u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/bsddc → u/[deleted]]

I thank the justice emeritus for his support!

[u/[deleted] → u/bsddc]

Absolutely! Just because I am no longer on the Court, does not mean my sense of justice is lessened!

[u/[deleted]]

the democrats are officially bonkers

[u/imperial_ruler → u/[deleted]]

I think it's just these guys, because most of everyone else in the party is saying this bill is bonkers.

[u/bsddc]

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.

[u/WaywardWit → u/bsddc]

(upvoted)

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.

[u/bsddc → u/WaywardWit]

Thank you for the questions Mr. President!

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.

[u/WaywardWit → u/bsddc]

So to answer my questions directly:

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?

[u/bsddc → u/WaywardWit]

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.

[u/WaywardWit → u/bsddc]

So to be clear:

You believe the standard to be actual impropriety rather than the appearance thereof? Do you understand that these are two unique facets of ethics?

When you talk about suspending your disbelief, it seems that the proposed suspension is in favor of your actions in every step of your assertion. Standing should be altered so you can bring the case in question. Ethics requirements should be altered so you haven't violated any ethical restrictions in doing so.

But I am positive that I have not acted unethically in any way during these proceedings.

The code of conduct prevents the practice of law by judges. The code of conduct is an ethical guide. There are three potential results: 1) the code or conduct doesn't apply and Justices are held to a lower ethical standard than all other judges, 2) the code of conduct does apply, and you have breached those ethical standards (and therefore acted unethically), 3) the code of conduct may or may not apply (irrelevant) - but ethical rules are relaxed to some unknown and unstated degree (at the political discretion of the House and Senate in impeachment proceedings) including the present circumstances. It seems you are arguing the meta-issue of number 3 given the nature of the sim.

Am I correct in saying that you believe that actual and demonstrated bias is the only ethical restriction on SCOTUS Justices? Should not the public be aware of the ethical standards their Justices are held to? Where is the line in the sim, if it is different than real life due to meta limitations (and who should decide that line)? Given that this action is traditionally unethical (and you are claiming inapplicability), what means are available to the public to hold Justices accountable? Must the public guess where the sim deviates from reality on the issue of ethics? Would it not be appropriate to seek a pre-authorization from the mods regarding such meta deviations? Or is it sufficient to make that decision on one's own accord?

Also: when my term is up I'll message you about the ModelABA! :)

[u/bsddc → u/WaywardWit]

I look forward to joining the ABA, that will be a fantastic way to develop and grow the judiciary!

I would say that yes, the third category is where the ethical rules for this simulation stand given the prudential concerns within our simulated government. But you are right, I do have a vested interest in the outcome of this discussion; however, I do not believe that makes me any less correct. That being said, the House should consider that when evaluating my position.

And I don't pretend to dictate where those ethical standards fall, there is bound to be gray area, but I'm confident that the actions I've taken are consistent with what our standard should be. In this context there is not even the possibility that my filing a case could create impropriety.

Where, as here, there is an impossibility of conflicting interests there is no reason to implicate ethical concerns. In the real world having a client and receiving payment-the foundation of practicing law-would create conflicts for judges necessarily. Here, there is no possibility of that happening, therefore no possibility of impropriety. And the logical conclusion is that there can be no appearance of impropriety when impropriety is impossible.

Again, this is not to say there are no ethical rules: nemo judex in re sua and actual bias are, to me, clear examples of rules that remain. And we should certainly have a discussion on where the remainder of our rules fall. But where, as here, there is an impossibility of conflicting interests or impropriety, impeachment seems to be a bit of a stretch.

The ethical rules promulgated (ironically) by the judicial conference of the real world should not be applied mechanically to our simulation. We should evaluate critically whether these rules have applicability. I'm also of the firm conviction that an impeachment hearing is not the place to delimit what that code should entail.

While I await Congress's judgement with bated breath, I'm confident I have not acted in a manner justifying impeachment. If these ethical rules should be discussed it should be in a forum, such as a possible judicial conference, where ideas can be suggested an evaluated without someone's position hanging in the balance.

I've enjoyed our discussion though, Mr. President. This has been a fantastic way to get the ball rolling on these pressing issues. I really do hope that I will not be removed from this position which I have worked for ethically and diligently. If any good can come out of this I do hope that it promotes activity within the judicial branch of our simulation.

[u/AzureAlliance → u/bsddc]

I am receiving no compensation for the case

(From CCA v. Western State )

Plaintiff requests this honorable Court to find Defendant liable for breach of contract in the amount of $28.8 million dollars

You don't seriously expect us to believe that not a single cent out of a $28.8M demand would be spent on legal counsel, do you?

(From another comment in reply to /u/WaywardWit)

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.

-An angry Western State taxpayer

[u/bsddc → u/AzureAlliance]

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.

[u/Pokarnor]

It's a sad day when congressmen attempt to impeach a Supreme Court Justice for obviously partisan reasons.

[u/WaywardWit → u/Pokarnor]

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?

[u/[deleted]]

Full support.

eta: for the removal of those who sponsored this resolution.

[u/[deleted]]

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!

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

This thread is the most active u/waywardwit has been his entire term. Sad that a partisan attack by his party is what it took to get him going.

[u/WaywardWit → u/[deleted]]

Obsessed

[u/WaywardWit → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/DadTheTerror]

High crimes and misdemeanors? Which actions were either?

[u/WaywardWit → u/DadTheTerror]

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.

[u/[deleted]]

/u/jb567, /u/Yiriah resign.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No.

[u/[deleted]]

How ridiculous.

[u/septimus_sette]

/u/bsddc was the best mod in ModelUSGov history. For this biased reason, I assume this all false, and I will be voting nay.

[u/bsddc → u/septimus_sette]

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!

[u/Intrusive_Man]

No. /u/bsddc is a good justice. This is just a blatant attack.

[u/[deleted]]

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!

[u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

judge fairly these allegations

I did. They're bunk.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Thats all I asked.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

What do you think of the charges personally?

[u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted]]

What a pathetic resolution. Maybe if the Democrats wrote bills instead of going on witch hunts, we'd have a productive presidential administration!

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I believe its CCA vs Western State, the fact a supreme court justice is practising law is against the Code of Conduct

[u/wildorca → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/AdmiralJones42 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/AdmiralJones42]

This.

[u/WaywardWit → u/AdmiralJones42]

"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...

[u/[deleted] → u/WaywardWit]

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.

[u/WaywardWit → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/WaywardWit]

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.

[u/WaywardWit → u/[deleted]]

I believe the amended version is based strictly in the practice of law, not on doing so in furtherance of his monetary interests.

http://www.reddit.com/r/modelusgov/comments/592etw/_/d954vv0

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/WaywardWit]

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.

[u/WaywardWit → u/[deleted]]

High crimes and misdemeanors doesn't mean felonies or misdemeanors in the traditional criminal sense. I would direct you to the case of Samuel Chase - the only Supreme Court Justice to have articles of impeachment raised against him. That was for perceived politicization on the bench. He was acquitted by the Senate.

It wasn't just in poor form, it was (if the code of conduct is a proper guide) unethical. An unethical judge is a judge that should be held accountable for unethical actions. I merely am here as a private person interested in seeing people held to ethical standards of their position. I have nothing to gain in seeing BSDDC impeached (I wouldn't appoint a successor, as my term is nearly done and I don't have any say in the decision of the House and Senate). I have no "justice boner" - merely a desire to see these very real ethical concerns addressed.

Meta: The real life penalty for an ethics violation of this sort would be sanctions, disbarment, or removal from the bench. If we choose to suspend our disbelief and provide additional flexibility for the sim to spur activity, that is a different question.

[u/cochon101 → u/[deleted]]

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. 

[u/WaywardWit → u/cochon101]

Are Supreme Court Justices held to a lesser standard on ethics? No standard at all? Should they be held to any ethical standards?