judicial ethics

The federal court panel said it lacked the jurisdiction to weigh in on the 83 complaints against the new Supreme Court justice.
Some court observers are crying foul over her comments about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
A group of congressional Democrats is set to introduce legislation Thursday that would apply stricter ethical standards to
Decisions in favor of groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the Chamber of Commerce by judges who attended seminars sponsored by the same institutions have led to the perception that corporations and conservative groups can buy judicial influence.
We're told that the court's docket is dominated by civil rights issues, but the justices have one major bit of unfinished business that's getting almost no attention, and deserves plenty: the court's own ethics.
What next? The facts are undisputed. The email was racist; its content despicable. It was forwarded by a sitting federal judge, indeed the chief judge of the district. Is this a wrong that can be righted by an apology?
In spreading a vile and racist "joke" about President Obama, Judge Cebull disgraced himself and demonstrated his unfitness for the bench. He has apologized, as he should, but that's not enough.
In the 16-page report, released on Saturday, Roberts rebuffed calls for the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt the Code of Conduct
In spite of substantial evidence to the contrary, the message from Chief Justice John Roberts of late is that he sees no ethics problem at the Court and that no reforms are needed or desirable. This is unfortunate.
On Friday, Slaughter submitted a new letter, this time addressed to Chief Justice John Roberts in his capacity as the presiding