Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s new code of conduct?

👍 Yes (14%) – "The formal step to solidify ethical behavior was good. There is no need to create an “oversight board” or state possible penalties because that is Congress’s job. We need to elect better people to Congress who will work together if we’re worried about them not removing unethical Justices or removing the “wrong” Justice."

• "Demands for a change in the justices is just an attempt to impose the legislative body in to the justice system. The 3 separate branches must be maintained."

🚫 No, it’s unnecessary (11%) – "Life is too complex to micromanage every aspect of human nature. We are not perfect . Check out our elected officials. How about the two presidential front runners. Decency, honesty, integrity are traits that one may possess, but they cannot be mandated."

➕ No, it doesn’t go far enough (65%) – "The code is toothless. The justices monitor themselves. That is not how one holds oneself accountable. A neutral third-party is needed to monitor their compliance with the code. They have amply demonstrated that they are not to be trusted in this regard."

• "Working in City government, I'm not allowed to accept any gifts from vendors over $20 in fear of being persuaded to use their products. How in the world can Supreme Court Justices who literally work the highest form of government be given such lavish gifts, in obvious attempts to sway their influence?"

"The Supreme Court is responsible for the interpretation of our beloved Constitution and serve their country with lifetime appointments. Any corruption that could affect their rulings, which have impacts of every facet of the American life, is a clear danger to the reliability, impartiality, and effectiveness of our judicial system."

• "It is unethical for Justices to receive money/items/vacations/etc, basically as bribes. Then, when the person giving those things has a case before the Supreme Court, that Justice rules in their favor. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to uphold laws, but by allowing some to get away with breaking laws if they pay the Justices off, it is going against their very purpose."

"Speaking as a lawyer, this code doesn't go nearly far enough. The biggest problem is that the judges have already claimed they didn't violate any of these rules. This does not hold them accountable, and there is no enforcement mechanism. Plus, their recusal rule has a "necessity clause" which says they don't have to recuse if it's necessary for them not to, and later the document implies that even a single judge not ruling on a case could be bad enough to make them not have to recuse themselves even when there is a clear conflict because all justices ruling is necessary. This code of ethics would never be sufficient for any other legal body, and it is not sufficient here."

🤷 Unsure/other (10%) – "It's great if we think we live in a mythical land where people won't perjure themselves or use legal loopholes when push comes to shove but all these government agencies answer to each other and they are all in rich people's pockets on different days for different reasons. It's just a shell game. Is it a step in the right direction? Maybe, but only if we believe these people would truly put America before themselves, which they all have yet to prove by their actions."