Hillary Clinton is the LAST person who should be weighing in on the ethics of the Supreme Court, yet that is exactly what she did yesterday.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined calls for establishing an “enforceable” code of ethics for Supreme Court justices following ethical controversies surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas.
Clinton said on Friday at a conference for the nonprofit she co-founded with fellow former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Vital Voices Global Partnership, that lower courts, circuit courts, members of Congress and candidates running for office all have enforceable ethics codes, but the highest court in the country does not.
That had me laughing so hard I nearly fell off my chair. And yes, folks, she really DID say that.
Ah yeah, famous known follower of ethic codes and standards. https://t.co/0txXIjRlOt
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) May 5, 2023
The whole bobblehead thing she does aside, the fact that she asked that question with a straight face is Hillary’s arrogance on full display!
To recap, the knives are out for the Supreme Court because its members dare to go against the Democrats chosen politics. Clarence Thomas and his wife, Ginni, have been relentlessly targeted these last few weeks. Justice Neil Gorsuch was targeted until it became readily apparent that those “journalists” didn’t have a clue about how LLC’s and real estate transactions tied to the LLC really work. So, I’m sure they are trying to drum up something else quite soon. It won’t be long before Justices Barrett, Alito, and Kavanaugh are on the receiving end of the Democrats animosity. They tried with Chief Justice Robert’s wife, and that attack pretty much died on the vine.
But oh how they are persisting with this.
Would Roberts please appear in front of the committee?
“I must respectfully decline your invitation,” Roberts wrote back, as “one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence.”
“It is noteworthy,” Durbin replied, “that no Justice will speak to the American people after numerous revelations have called the Court’s ethical standards into question.”
There are a great many people calling for not only full ethics investigations into the Supreme Court, but for Clarence Thomas’ resignation.
There needs to be Judicial ethics. The house and senate have rules, and the courts need them too for sake of the institution.
— Adam Kinzinger #fella (@AdamKinzinger) May 5, 2023
I agree with @judgeluttig
Just as long as Harvard law professors and senators don't have to!
— BullshitSquared (blue check) (@xenophonrocks) May 5, 2023
Haha, remember when you used your cocked-up Indian claim to advance your career, and went predatory on underwater mortgages to enrich yourself? Good thing none of that's unethical.
And now, Hillary decides to proffer her opinion on the matter.
“Of course, there should be ethical standards, and they should carry some weight because [of] the daily revelations about what has gone on, particularly with Justice Thomas, but a few others as well,” Clinton said. “And they should be nonpartisan, not just bipartisan, nonpartisan. They should be a set of standards, and people should be held to them.”
Again, this is hugely laughable given it is HILLARY who is now asserting that an “enforceable code of ethics” needs to be put in place, while stating that everyone else in government is bound by an enforceable code of ethics. Are you laughing? I sure as hell am.
Let’s count Hillary’s ethical lapses shall we?
Servers in her bathroom and basement?
Using personal emails for government business?
Blackberries?
Bleach Bit and wiping the hard drives with a cloth?
The Clinton Foundation and its donors including Harvey Weinstein?
Uranium sales?
The list is long and distinguished. What’s interesting about this is, if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary had won the Presidency, for which I’m forever thankful she didn’t, she wouldn’t be concerned about any kind of ethics code for the Supreme Court.
You see, any suggestion of impropriety from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or the very real conflict of interest regarding Justice Sonia Sotomayer are different because they are liberals who did and do typically vote the Democrat narrative.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from multiple cases involving a book publisher – Penguin Random House – which paid her more than $3 million since 2010, according to a report. The copyright infringement cases, in which Penguin Random House stood to suffer financial damage if the court ruled unfavorably, were not taken up by the high court but justices voted on whether or not to hear the cases. Altogether, Sotomayor earned $3.6 million from Penguin Random House and its subsidiaries for agreeing to let them publish her 2013 memoir, “My Beloved World,” and numerous children’s books since then, the Daily Wire reported on Thursday.
The same year that her memoir came out, Sotomayor voted on whether the high court should take up Aaron Greenspan v. Random House. Her liberal colleague at the time, Justice Stephen Breyer, recused himself from the case, having also received money from Penguin Random House.
Ethics for thee, not for me! Meanwhile, the latest hit job on Justice Clarence Thomas is falling flat, but Mollie Hemingway asks a REALLY good question! Who is bankrolling this effort?
I’d like to know the answer to that question, wouldn’t you?
Hillary’s call for an “enforceable code of ethics” to be implemented at the Supreme Court is laughable given her multitude of ethical lapses that ended up with her receiving ZERO consequences for her actions.
Welcome Instapundit Readers!
Feature Photo Credit: Photo of Hillary January 2016 by Gage Skidmore via Flickr, cropped and modified
Cameron says: Sad broken shell of a woman trying desperately to extend her fifteen minutes.
Lloyd says: What, pray tell, does Clinton know about ethics ??? She and hubbie have displayed behavior over the years that has been anything but ethical. She is a joke!
Cameron says: Perhaps she could be held up as an example of what not to do.
A reader says: So basically you’re ok with a Justice, any Justice, receiving lavish vacations from donors? Particularly when those same donors have cases before the court? All lower court justices have to follow a code of ethics, why shouldn’t the highest court in the land? How can we trust their opinions when it’s unclear whether or not a Justice has ruled in favor of someone who has done things like paid for a close family member’s schooling, a parent’s house or lavish trips? Or when a Justice’s spouse is paid tens of thousands of dollars for consulting work by a judicial activist with cases that later appeared before the court, and then he directed that her name be left off the billing? (Which might actually be a crime!) Any other government employee would be fired for those things. But not a Supreme Court Justice apparently. I highly doubt you’d be so cavalier if this was a liberal Justice we were talking about. NO ONE, whether or not you agree with their politics, should be above the law, not even those who make it.
alien says: “I highly doubt you’d be so cavalier if this was a liberal Justice we were talking about.”
And yet, you’re the one who ignores the elephant in the room — the wide Latina, who committed the most egregious violation of ethics while her fellow justice did the right thing:
The same year that her memoir came out, Sotomayor voted on whether the high court should take up Aaron Greenspan v. Random House. Her liberal colleague at the time, Justice Stephen Breyer, recused himself from the case, having also received money from Penguin Random House.
“NO ONE, whether or not you agree with their politics, should be above the law, not even those who make it.”
Civics primer: the Supreme Court does not make law. And ethics violations (which have yet to be proven) aren’t “illegal.”
Bucky says: Don’t trash the messenger while ignoring the message. An enforceable SCOTUS Code of Ethics would be the vehicle by which the Left would control the court. Look at how Alaskas code of ethics hamstrung Gov. Palin to the point that she resigned under the weight of her legal debt fighting the bogus claims. In the case of a SCOTUS Code of Ethics there would be a non-stop Leftist media campaign against any conservative justice accused of anything.
6 Comments