'The dogma lives loudly in you': Diana Feinstein's grilling of Trump SCOTUS frontrunner for her devout catholicism goes viral
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Politics
'The dogma lives loudly in you': Diana Feinstein's grilling of Trump SCOTUS frontrunner for her devout catholicism goes viral
Mon, September 21, 2020, 11:34 AM EDT
Dianne Feinstein speaking to Amy Cohen Barrett in 2017 at her hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. ((CSpan))
A video of Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein grilling the frontrunner to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the US Supreme Court, has resurfaced after president Donald Trump vowed to replace the late justice. Following Ms Ginsburg’s death on Friday evening, Mr Trump said he would fill her now vacant seat on the Supreme Court “without delay,” despite the presidential election taking place in just a few weeks' time.
A place on the court is a lifetime position and if a justice is appointed by Mr Trump, it would likely give the court a Conservative super majority that could stand for decades. Mr Trump said on Sunday that he has an “obligation” to appoint a replacement for Ms Ginsburg, and US Circuit Court judge Amy Coney Barrett is rumoured to be the frontrunner for the position. The 48-year-old devout catholic was considered by the president to replace retired justice Anthony M Kennedy in 2018, when Brett Kavanaugh was chosen instead. At the time, Mr Trump said he was saving the former law professor for Ms Ginsburg’s seat.
A 2017 clip from Ms Barrett’s nomination hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where Ms Feinstein raised concerns over her devout catholic beliefs, has resurfaced on social media following Ms Ginsburg’s death and the rumours about her nomination. At the hearing, Ms Feinstein told the 48-year-old: “I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the Dogma lives loudly within you. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have thought for, for years in this country.”
In response to the California senator’s remarks, Ms Barrett claimed that she would be able to keep her professional and religious beliefs separate, according to the Indianapolis Star . She added that she would “follow all Supreme Court precedent without fail” and would “never impose my own personal convictions upon the law.” During her confirmation hearing, she also claimed that she would regard Roe vs Wade, which ruled the US constitution protects a woman’s choice to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction, as a binding precedent. However, despite this claim, she has previously argued that US judges should not be forced to uphold the Roe vs Wade ruling, according to The Washington Post .
In her position on the Circuit Court of Appeals, Ms Barrett also called for the re-hearing of a case that denied vice president Mike Pence’s abortion law, which would have prevented abortions if the fetus was disabled. Additionally, in 2012, the mother to seven children told a class at the University of Notre Dame that it is always good to remember that a “legal career is but a means to an end…and that end is building the Kingdom of God.”
The decision on the timeline of the justice nomination is causing controversy, with many Democratic officials arguing that it should wait until after the results of 3 November’s election are confirmed.
On Friday evening, Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, said that the nomination should wait until after the election, following his tribute to Ms Ginsburg.
He said: “There is no doubt, let me be clear, that the voters should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider.”
Tags
Who is online
418 visitors
A 2017 clip from Ms Barrett’s nomination hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where Ms Feinstein raised concerns over her devout catholic beliefs, has resurfaced on social media following Ms Ginsburg’s death and the rumours about her nomination. At the hearing, Ms Feinstein told the 48-year-old: “I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the Dogma lives loudly within you. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have thought for, for years in this country.”
In response to the California senator’s remarks, Ms Barrett claimed that she would be able to keep her professional and religious beliefs separate, according to the Indianapolis Star . She added that she would “follow all Supreme Court precedent without fail” and would “never impose my own personal convictions upon the law.” During her confirmation hearing, she also claimed that she would regard Roe vs Wade, which ruled the US constitution protects a woman’s choice to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction, as a binding precedent. However, despite this claim, she has previously argued that US judges should not be forced to uphold the Roe vs Wade ruling, according to The Washington Post .
In her position on the Circuit Court of Appeals, Ms Barrett also called for the re-hearing of a case that denied vice president Mike Pence’s abortion law, which would have prevented abortions if the fetus was disabled. Additionally, in 2012, the mother to seven children told a class at the University of Notre Dame that it is always good to remember that a “legal career is but a means to an end…and that end is building the Kingdom of God.”
She's a member of a far-right Catholic sect that believes man is the head of the woman and the woman must obey the man.
Do you think her husband demanded she finish law school, become a US Federal judge and then put her name forward for SCOTUS? If not....then who runs that household????? Obviously, HE doesn't!
(this is all tongue in cheek)
She's done all that while raising seven kids, two of which are adopted.
But shouldn't she have been at home with the kiddies? Who took care of them while she was pursuing her career?
[Deleted]
Why distinguish between natural children and adopted children?
Because it makes her more "saintly"
What is wrong with a belief in Catholic dogma?
Nothing at all unless you insist on pushing your religion on other people
Well, that would suggest that any dogmatic belief would be problematic for the same reason.
absolutely
Feinstein proves herself a witless hypocrite almost every time she opens her mouth. Bottom line is that no matter how qualified the lady is or her religious beliefs, the left will put out every stop they can come up with for two basic reasons. One is that she was nominated by Trump and number two, the lady is simply not the staunch hard core leftist liberal Democrat that the left demands. Nothing else matters.
The Pope warned about the dogma of the Catholic sects. Barrett isn't a JFK or Biden or Scalia Catholic.
wonder if people realize that there are 5 confirmed catholics sitting on the USSC, and a 6th that the media cant nail down as to if they are a catholic , or a pentacostal.....
It's not the religion that matters. It's the politics. When the judge is a liberal Catholic, then it's wonderful that their faith might shape their opinions.
To me, every justice should first focus on the constitution, law and legal precedent. Matters should first exhaust those guiding principles before relying upon normal human judgment. Given the complexity of the cases they consider (these are not textbook cases of law) their opinions ultimately involve an aspect of conventional human judgment and that is where other personal factors of the justice come into play.
For example, on the issue of abortion, each justice should rule out that which is unconstitutional and consider legal precedent such as Roe v. Wade. Then, when the opinion (per the legal argument made) is framed with those principles, the justice will finish the opinion using their own personal judgment which comes from their experiences, knowledge, culture and all the biases and beliefs that they hold as normal human beings.
Thus political, religious and other positions will ultimately factor into each justice's opinions. It is therefore appropriate to consider these other dimensions/positions of a candidate justice beyond the core of legal knowledge and experience. If a candidate such as Prof. Amy Cohen Barrett really does (not sure if this is actually true but lets go with the hypothetical) believe that a husband should dominate his wife, I find that to be a troubling view for a justice of the SCotUS to hold given the influence each justice has on the whole of the USA (now and in the future since SCotUS decisions could be in effect in perpetuity).
Every dogmatic belief could potentially factor into a justice's opinion. Thus the nature of the belief matters. For example, dogmatic belief that human beings are all equal in the eyes of God is arguably a good belief. In contrast, dogmatic belief that men should dominate women is arguably a bad belief.
Who decides which dogma has primacy?
The arguments being made suggests that Justice Ginsberg was dogmatic in her judicial reasoning. And the desire is to replace Ginsberg with a justice that adheres to the same dogmatic beliefs.
IMO a dogmatic Supreme Court doesn't serve the country well. The Supreme Court needs justices who are more objective and less dogmatic. Packing the court with dogmatic justices may be politically expedient but that forces the Supreme Court to become a political body. If the Supreme Court is to become a political body then the justices should be elected like any other politician.
The individuals who vet, nominate or confirm a candidate (of course).
I agree. I prefer objective reasoning to dogmatism but it is fair to say that everyone has some dogmatism.
Feinstein’s bigotry deserves all the attention it can get. Republicans capitalized on it big time the first time around. While the rest of the Country moved past this prejudice with the election of JFK, it’s nice to remind people bigots like Feinstein still exist and sit in the senate.
????????????
[deleted]
CHRISTOPHER EISGRUBER, Princeton University President: “Article VI’s prohibition of religious tests is a critical guarantee of equality and liberty, and it is part of what should make all of us proud to be Americans.By prohibiting religious tests, the Constitution makes it impermissible to deny any person a national, state, or local office on the basis of their religious convictions or lack thereof. Because religious belief is constitutionally irrelevant to the qualifications for a federal judgeship, the Senate should not interrogate any nominee about those beliefs. I believe, more specifically, that the questions directed to Professor Barrett about her faith were not consistent with the principle set forth in the Constitution’s ‘no religious test’ clause.
CHRISTOPHER EISGRUBER has a right to his beliefs but the facts is, the whole confirmation process is ALL ABOUT questioning the nominee's beliefs.
Questioning Barrett's beliefs, as expressed in her writings, is fair game and that's exactly what Feinstein did.
religious testing is illegal
[deleted]
removed for context
That's not what's happening here.
Yes it is.
Can anyone show some rulings here Coney-Barrett decided cases based on her religious beliefs, and how those decisions have been overturned by higher courts??
Her 'vast' judicial record makes that difficult.
I am sorry everything isn't easy.
Difficult doesn't mean impossible
It’s easier to just declare without evidence that she’s dangerous. Then you keep repeating it until enough people believe it.
I wonder how anyone looked at non-existent rulings from some Justice with no judicial experience to "vet" her.
lol
Whoosh right over your head.
Can you find anywhere that she's agreed to go on record about the Christian sect she is a member of?
ah, that tired old bit again?
I have never seen anything you have posted which I don't get.
she doesn't need to.
religious tests are illegal.
Actually, she will if journalists and those that do the background checks do their job.
religious tests are illegal.
all she has to do is invoke the "ginsberg rule ". (ironic )
yeah, THAT would go over like a lead balloon with the Democrats!
Sorry, but no journalist can force her to do a thing.
BTW, were you okay with Ginsburg's hearing?
Are you asking me to look?
A reminder seems appropriate right about now for those who would like to "forget" that rule right about now.
It's like deja vu all over again and you are right. The irony is certainly as thick as molasses, also considering who the chair of Ginsbergs confirmation hearing was and who is running for POTUS.
They need not force her, they need only investigate and ask her to comment and then write the article. Americans will then know.
I didn't see it live.
journalists can ask whatever, doesn't mean she has to answer.
religious tests remain illegal. even when the intended target isn't a Democrat or liberal
"Whoosh right over your head."
Like everything
Journalists are not covered by that law and NEITHER are those that are doing the background check. They'll want to know who her religious counselor is and her relationships with the other members of her sect. They'll check out her husband, who she says she is subordinate to, and her kids and her dog and her neighbors.
I've gone through a couple of government background checks [just passed one] over the years and they are usually throughout and intrusive.
A religious test is illegal.
All she has to do in hearings is invoke the Ginsburg Rule.
Joe Biden should be absolutely ecstatic over it!
She can tell "journalists" to pound sand.
None of their freaking business what her religious views are.
Quit spamming your bullshit 'A religious test is illegal.' I know that's all you have though, so you go for it.
Bullshit?
Is it your claim that religious tests ARE legal? because that would be the only thing that could possibly make my statement of fact bullshit.
It seems possible you missed the following:
Not all, by any stretch.
Lol ..... your turn to roil the fanatics
He has done nothing of the kind.
He doesn't roil me.
Lol, well, at least you admit you’re a fanatic.
Progress ........
What rule is that?
Why?
Yes but then her sect will be hounded with questions.
Doesn't matter, they'll ask...
The Ginsburg rule. How can you read it once, respond to it specifically, and not know what I wrote?
Read a little history on the Ginsburg hearings, and who presided over them. Might give a clue as to why Biden might be happy.
Then they can tell reporters to pound sand.
Doesn't matter, no one is obligated to satisfy the press.
Are you reading the posts here?
Please read post 3.1.14 (hat tip to Sparty ON!)
It was something made up as the title of an article published by the Heritage Foundation in preparation for the John Roberts hearings.
It's not a really a rule, it's just the proper way for a nominee to behave during a Senate interview as evidenced by RBG when she was interviewed.
As the head of Judiciary, Biden made the rules, many Senators ignored them, asking those type questions anyway.
RGB followed those rules.
Again, what rule is that?
So you have no intention of supporting or explaining your own opinion.
Then they should be 'project veritased'. Y'all love that kind of shit right?
Which states:
So shouldn't you be talking about the Biden rule?
Yes I know exactly where the BS behind the 'rule' came from.
I read Heritage articles regularly to gauge where the RW is coming from. Their Constitution page is actually quite good and the explanatory articles about each Article of the Constitution are very informative.
First you claim not to know what I m talking about, and now you wish to correct me on something you had no knowledge of?
MMMmmmmmmmmkkkkkkkaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy.
And even if you wish to make it the Biden Rule, THAT would be a reason for Biden to be happy!
Again, if you don't know, look it up. I am not going to do research for you.
I have done so, and if you don't think so, oh, well. Not a problem for me to worry any about.
No clue to what you are attempting to communicate there, or who "y'all" is.
Is it me and others? What others? If I don't know WTF you are talking about, I kind of doubt I would be in favor if it, but you go right ahead and tell me what else I think or like!
Hang on, let me get some popcorn.
I never said that I didn't know what you were talking about Tex.
So then Barrett should invoke the Biden Rule at her hearing...
Then that makes this unnecessary and rather odd:
If you knew what rule I was talking about, the comment is pointless.
I doubt seriously she will cite anyone's name at all regarding it. She can simply say she refuses to answer any question regarding something that may come before her as a member of SCOTUS, or her personal views.
You may call it the Biden Rule if you choose, but if you cite the Biden Rule, most folks will think of a "rule" regarding placing SC OTUS members during an election year.
Call it the Ginsburg rule and most folks will know what you mean.
Call it whatever YOU want though. No big deal.
Actually, it wasn't since it's now documented here that it's a RW FABRICATION.
the senate should just skip the hearings and confirm trumps pick next week...
heads would explode
Boom!
r---i----'g----'h-----t.
it never happened because some choose to pretend it didnot.
S----u--‐-r-----e.
Do you actually think that Sen. Lindsey Graham would give up the hours of free facetime he would enjoy while chairing the hearing? You know he's in a VERY close election right?
Judges are allowed to have beliefs and opinions. What matters is how they apply the law. Anything else is a religious test, prohibited by the Constitution.
Yes but it is up to those vetting, nominating and confirming the candidate justice to make good decisions on the suitability of the candidate to be on the highest court in the land for (at their option) life.
Accordingly, I offer my extreme example to illustrate a point.
If the candidate held ALL of these irrational beliefs:
... would you (if you were in a position to do so) vote for such a candidate to be a justice of the SCotUS?
As I have said what? A ZILLION times now? That would not be the criteria by which I would make my decision.
If a candidate met all your criteria yet held ALL the aforementioned beliefs, would you vote for the candidate to be a justice of the SCotUS?
What criteria would you use?
Why do you refuse to answer my question?
For crying out loud, I have answered your stupid, repetitive question so many times! You obviously don't like my answer. That is just too bad for you, though.
So tell us, oh wise one!
What is your criteria?
If you had a brilliant jurist, with years of experience, making wise decisions, with no indication of bizarre beliefs in her opinions, just great legal scholarship, and fair justice . . . and on the side believed all that wacky shit you listed, are you telling me you still wouldn't approve her?
In favor of what? An equal or lesser jurist who believes whatever the hell it is you believe? If so, that's pretty arrogant, not to mention bigoted and irresponsible.
You have dodged this question every time. You did, however, just now answer it for the first time on another article. And I responded there.
And here you put words in my mouth and go personal at the same time. Chill, I am just reacting to your tactics. If you do not like this game then I recommend not starting it. I, frankly, despise this kind of crap and would hope that more thoughtful discussions would emerge. Up to you.
Since you now answered me in the other article, I will reciprocate.
I, like you, would seek the most qualified person for the job. No doubt about it. This is not necessarily an experienced professional judge, but rather a person who is sharp, able to understand scenarios in the abstract, knows how to research (using clerks of course), is impartial and is able to think critically and rationally.
Any candidate who believes in ALL these irrational and ridiculous beliefs:
... would be categorically eliminated from consideration for justice of the SCotUS due to a clear propensity to hold extreme irrational beliefs.
Now, are there any beliefs held by a candidate that would cause you to reject them? Anything at all??
That is not true. A lie, pure and simple. It has been pointed out to you several times that it is not true and you persist in this false allegation. I will say it AGAIN. Your question has been asked and answered multiple times. That is MY position. You are unsatisfied with the answer. That is YOUR problem.
At this point your continuing to ask it is nothing more than naked harassment.
Do not tell me to chill when you have repeatedly accused me of dishonesty, dodging, and other things. Now you want to act like the innocent lamb who doesn't provoke people? Sorry, no one buys that. I sure don't.
You are not qualified to judge a thoughtful discussion and you do not get to accuse me of not being thoughtful. You have the sanctimony to chastise me for "going personal" and then you try to demean me by accusing me of not being thoughtful. That is hypocrisy of the highest order.
We're not hiring an administrative assistant. We're hiring a justice on the Supreme Court. You apparently have no appreciation for what a monumental responsibility that is. Simply being bright won't cut it. A person who sits on the court should have the strongest legal background and experience.
I'm actually not surprised you have such a naive view of Supreme Court justices. We see this ignorance on display every day as lay people pull their hair and gnash their teeth over Court rulings they don't begin to comprehend. They might be bright people in their own personal or professional lives, but they honestly don't know shit about being a Supreme Court justice.
I do not see where I suggested the candidate would be merely qualified as an admin; you should point that out to me (good luck).
I would favor people with strong legal backgrounds and experience. My comment was ' not necessarily an experienced professional judge '. The phrase ' not necessarily ' means that I would not exclude a person simply because they had not been a judge. My focus is on the core criteria required to serve on the SCotUS. Justices adjudicate complex scenarios based on the CotUS, law and societal experience. One need not be a judge to be able to do that.
My comment is that I would not reject a candidate who was a professor of law or an experienced attorney or some other experience that made them suitable to effectively analyze and opine on cases brought to the SCotUS.
Looks like you should have a problem with our CotUS and reject general knowledge on the qualifications for justices. Are you aware of sitting Justice Elene Kagen? She was appointed to the SCotUS by Obama. Justice Kagen was the solicitor general and later professor of law but she never was a judge of any kind . Apparently you think Obama, his vetting committee and the US Senate " have no appreciation for what a monumental responsibility that is ".
And do you remember Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist? Do you think he was a judge? Was Reagan, et. al. lacking appreciation for the responsibility?
Then we have the CotUS requirements and the SCotUS website :
Now, that established, you deemed me ignorant because I stated I would not exclude a candidate simply because they were not an experienced judge. Yet I have shown that this has been done in the recent past (and has been done throughout history of the SCotUS). So now let's turn to this lovely closing from you:
True, I would not reject a candidate simply because s/he was not an experienced judge. History and precedent support my statement. But you, in contrast, have stated that you would allow (not reject) a candidate who held ALL these beliefs:
Seems to me, anyone who would allow a candidate holding ALL of the above beliefs to be a justice of the SCotUS holds a " naive view of Supreme Court justices "
That one is true and should be considered an honored form of end of life care.
I don't need luck. You just need to be able to read and understand.
You mean the fictional person you invented to deflect from your religious test? Yeah, ok. Did you think I'd really forget the genesis of all your absurd fantasy proposals?
Of course not if it's a trumpturd appointee.
My deliberately extreme example was designed to illustrate that it is perfectly sound reasoning to disqualify a candidate for the SCotUS based on certain beliefs. You were arguing that beliefs are irrelevant ... that one would have to be an arrogant, irresponsible bigot to disqualify a candidate based on any belief.
Well, I offered you a list of extreme irrational beliefs that I would expect anyone to recognize as entirely inconsistent with a person who is to be impartial and grounded for a life appointment on the highest court in the land. I asked if you would actually vote (if you had the option) to seat a justice who held ALL of these beliefs:
Seems to me, the obvious answer would be: 'of course not, I would reject any candidate who held ALL of these beliefs'. The reason, of course, is that someone who actually believes the above extreme irrational nonsense is not a person who should be adjudicating the most important issues of the land via a life appointment to the SCotUS.
But not you! You have stated that as long as the candidate meets your criteria that you would not let ANY belief (unless it directly was tied with the law in your view) they hold disqualify them in your eyes. Recently:
Yup, Tacos!, if a candidate believed ALL the wacky shit in my list there is no way I would vote to confirm this as a justice for life on the SCotUS. Quite amazing, frankly, that you would vote to seat the candidate given the absurdity of what is on that list.
But you insist that you would disregard all of these irrational beliefs in my list because you do not want to be seen as ...
Well I just wonder what the American people would think of someone who voted to seat a justice who believed in the directly-tied-to-the-law notion that women should be dominated by men or that slavery is perfectly natural and good. I find it hard to imagine they would see that as a responsible vote.
I wonder how much truth there is in that. Given the utter absurdity of voting for a candidate who would hold ALL of the beliefs on my list, the reasoning process seems enigmatic.
You can take it as the complete and total truth.
Every time we vote there is an element of a religious test. Always has been, probably always will be.
Some candidates shamefully pander for the votes of specific groups.
To believe otherwise is naive.
Judges, like any other candidate need only promise to uphold the law and keep their religious beliefs at bay,
or recuse themselves or face the Appeals Courts after the fact.
I doubt any judicial nominee would have cases that rise to that standard of conflict.
I agree, it has always been there. thing is the federal government cannot deny anyone an office based on religious beliefs and the judiciary has its own sets of rules they must follow .
Yet once confirmed for the SCOTUS, NO Code of Conduct applies.
Actually there is , the code of moral justice ,thats the thing that keeps justices from talking about cases or things that could hint at how they might decide in even hypothetical cases and proof of such is the simple fact that even USSC justices can be impeached for improper actions , matter of fact more justices( throughout the entire judicial branch) have been impeached in our history and sucsessfully removed than have been presidents .
WTF is that Mark? Please provide a link.
None of which are documented in any Code of Conduct. PERIOD, full stop.
Yet only one SCOTUS Justice and even Chase was NOT impeached for violating a Code of Conduct. Chase's impeachment was purely political and the Senate failed to convict.
The other Federal Judges are held to a Code of Conduct that the SCOTUS fails to follow.
This must be the one your talking about when you say OTHER judges are held to a code of conduct, it is the same one that the USSC follows ,, and has been adopted by those judicial entities outside the judicial system such as the military justice system which is seperate from the federal governments judicial system.
i have read that this code of conduct is also referred to as the code of moral justice , and that is the term i used .
now if you wish to say that the USSC is not bound by this code because of their lofty positions , they would have a very difficult time enforcing it on any lower courts if they themselves did not follow the same code.
It does apply to all even if they are not mentioned in the text. and i would also state that since all of the sitting justices came from the lower courts where the code is applicable that they would also carry it with them into their next office., if only for example to those in the lower courts.
Or do you wish to call the integrity of the highest court , into question, which the very code is set up to protect?
you think that the sitting justices once they reach the top of the system would just abandon and throw away what they have sworn for a lifetime to follow?
I dont think so and thats my opinion even if i disagree with a justices ruling.
From YOUR link:
Note that Supreme court justices are NOT listed there. In fact, they are the ONLY federal judges not listed. IF that code did cover the Supreme court justices, it would just say 'ALL Federal Judges'.
I invite you and all members here that doubt my statement to do a simple google search "Supreme Court has no code of conduct' and then READ at least some of the plethora of articles that have been written decrying that fact over the decades.
There have been almost an equal number of articles written about the ethics issues of Supreme court justices, most recently with Clarence Thomas many ethics issues, ALL of with would have been violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct.
I take it you glossed over that or ignored it.
It does not mention the military court system , yet they have adopted and used it .
USSC can just as easily be said to have as well since they come from the listed federal courts one is just not sat on the high court , and throw every single rule or canon they have been in practice under their entire judicial career out the window.
That code is not mentioned in military judicial manuals , but it is adhered to , so to can members of the USSC decide that they will adhere to them as well without any legal requirement or formal declaration .
Justice Thomass ethics? or his wifes? i have seen a number about his wifes , but not his personally pertaining to the courts and i believe one of the canons directly adresses the ethics issues that were in question. and since it was not him personally but his wife , whom is not bound by those codes of conduct the matter is settled..
So which would you like more , one that adheres to something they have no legal responsability to adhere to , or someone whom you think has carte blanche to do as they wish?
I believe the current justices have shown even not mentioned that they do adhere to the code of conduct that bound them in the lower courts.
you are free to believe differently.
I did NEITHER, since that sentence doesn't exist anywhere in your link OR the PDF of the Code of Conduct.
So it's a figment of your imagination and a failed attempt to defend your unfounded posit. The rest of your comment on the Code of Conduct is just deflective blather.
Your lack of knowledge is irrelevant.
WTF are you talking about?
Yet you've still failed to post any evidence on which you base your belief or linked anything that supports you claim that any of the justices 'mentioned' anything about adhering to the code.
I know and I base my belief on FACTS.