The highest court in the country wrote its own ethics rules, enforced them against itself, and accepted undisclosed luxury travel from people with business before it. That is not independence — it is a self-supervising institution that captured its own oversight. But a judge removable for unpopular rulings isn’t independent either. This statute draws the line precisely: real enforcement over personal conduct, and none whatsoever over how a judge decides a case.
Supreme Court justices wrote their own code of conduct, decided for themselves whether to follow it, and answered to no one who could compel anything.Check it
Undisclosed gifts and luxury travel arrived from people with interests before the Court — and recusal was left to the judgment of the judge receiving them.Check it
Lifetime appointments turned every vacancy into a generational war, and the timing of a death or retirement mattered more than any election.Check it
Meanwhile a single district judge could freeze national policy for everyone, and states could simply ignore federal injunctions they disliked.Check it
A nine-member Judicial Ethics Commission with binding authority — its ninth member drawn by lot from retired federal appellate judges, so neither party can engineer the majority.
It may act on exactly four grounds: willful misconduct, a felony, a material undisclosed conflict, or permanent incapacity. It may never act on a judge’s decisions, legal philosophy, or rulings. That door is welded shut.
Annual financial disclosure, a $100 gift threshold, and no exception for entities connected to litigation. Mandatory recusal for financial conflicts and for gift and travel donors.
Supreme Court terms are limited to 18 years of active service, with senior status after — so a seat is a term, not a lifetime lottery ticket.
The judiciary supervised itself, and the highest court answered to nobody at all.Check it
A nine-member Judicial Ethics Commission with binding powers — recusal orders, disclosure compliance, gift and travel enforcement, removal of non-Article III judges, and referral to Congress. Its ninth member is selected by lot from retired federal appellate judges, solving the tiebreaker problem without handing either party the deciding seat.
Any accountability mechanism risked becoming a weapon to punish judges for rulings the powerful disliked.Check it
Four grounds only: willful misconduct, felony offense, material undisclosed conflict of interest, permanent incapacity. The Commission cannot act based on a judge’s decisions, legal philosophy, or any characterization of their rulings. Judicial independence on the law is absolute.
Justices accepted luxury travel and hospitality from wealthy patrons with matters before the Court, disclosed little, and recused themselves at their own discretion.Check it
Annual financial disclosure with a $100 gift threshold and a no-exception rule for entities connected to litigation. Educational travel is permitted only under defined, published criteria. Mandatory recusal for financial conflicts and for anyone who gave you a gift or a trip.
An appointment lasted decades, so a single vacancy could reshape the country for a generation — and death or retirement timing became a partisan weapon.Check it
18 years of active service on the Supreme Court, then senior justice status, with a defined transition for sitting justices. Regularized, predictable vacancies lower the stakes of every single seat.
The Senate could simply refuse to act on a nomination indefinitely, running out the clock with no consequence.Check it
An enforceable Senate confirmation timeline, backed by mandamus. Advice and consent means acting — not pocketing a nomination until the calendar changes.
A single district judge could enjoin national policy for everyone, and forum-shopping made that a strategy rather than an accident.Check it
Defined limits on nationwide injunctions — what is prohibited and what remains permitted — so relief fits the case without leaving genuine constitutional violations unremedied.
A state could slow-walk or simply defy a federal injunction, and the practical remedy was thin.Check it
Real enforcement mechanisms against state non-compliance with federal injunctions. A court order is not a suggestion — and a uniform Code of Conduct now binds every federal judge, not just the ones who volunteer.
This is the plain-language version. The binding text is CS-2, which implements Article Five of the Constitution.
This is your country’s law. Help shape the next draft of it.
