Louisiana Voice

So, why do we need to have some standard of ethics, a bar below which no justice should ever stoop (or slither)?

I mean, why would anyone ever question the ethics of Justices Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito? Free trips to exotic vacation destinations and public displays of controversial political leanings shouldn’t call their impartiality, their fairness, their objectivity into question, right?

Well, at least Louisiana’s junior U.S. senator agrees.

Yep, Mr. Self-Righteous his own self, John Neely Kennedy, joined other Sens. Wishy-washy Lendsey Graham (R-S.C.). Mike Lee (R-Utah) and others of the family values and apple pie party to BLOCK such tomfoolery, calling it “unconstitutional overreach.”

Funny, but I was taught in high school civics class that the judiciary, legislative and executive branches of government were to serve as “checks and balances” on each other. Guess my teachers back then misunderstood what our government was all about. Geez, you’d think they’d know better.

Graham, ever the statesman and diplomat, said the proposal by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), said the bill would “undermine the court’s ability to operate effectively.”

I see. To require the justices to adhere to some standard of conduct that might place the highest court in the land above reproach, could conceivably hamstring the court in carrying out its duties of administering justice fairly and equitably for every single American – white, black, brown, red, yellow, gay, straight, male, female, rich or poor. Well, we just can’t have that now, can we?

Durbin was a tad more on the blunt side when he said, “The highest court in the land cannot and should not have the lowest ethical standards.”

The Dingler Wild Hog Roundup in Bienville Parish has higher ethical standards than the U.S. Supreme Court (that’s a story to be addressed in a later post).

But Kennedy had the most unique, most original (I suppose), most creative reasoning for objecting to Durbin’s proposal: “I do not think this bill is about ethics,” he sniffed. “This bill is about abortion.”

Huh? Double huh?

What in the name of green persimmons is Foghorn Leghorn talking about? (if you watch video of Leghorn pontificating, you’ll get the green persimmon reference; he looks as though he just ate one.).

Surely, Kennedy, Graham, et al, weren’t opposed to the implementation of ethics for the nine justices simply because the bill was proposed by a (gasp) Democrat! Surely not, for these honorable public servants would never place partisan politics above doing what’s best for the country.

Never mind that. Let’s take a look at a video from Wednesday’s subcommittee hearing on the freedom to travel for abortion care. Kennedy, who has a penchant for posing decidedly loaded questions, got his COME-UPPANCE from Jocelyn Frye of the National Partnership for Women and Families, who suggested that Mr. “I’d rather drink weed killer” made the critical mistake of asking a question without being fulling informed of the answer.