The conservative justice indicated support for a code of conduct similar to the one that applies to lower federal court judges.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett indicated Monday she would support a code of conduct for the Supreme Court in the wake of recent claims that some justices have fallen short of required ethical standards.

Speaking at the University of Minnesota Law School, Barrett said it would be “a good idea for us do it” and suggested that the justices are broadly in support of a set of principles similar to those that lower court judges are required to follow.

“There is no lack of consensus among the justices. There’s unanimity among all nine justices that we should and do hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards possible,” she added.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not even that rare.

    My buddy married a completely normal woman, but to get married in her family’s church part of their ceremony had to include her swearing to God that she’ll obey her husband no matter what.

    They didn’t take it seriously, but lots of her church take it literally. Women are still just property in their sect of Christianity. And the biggest part of marriage is transferring “ownership” from father to husband.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Jeez, I didn’t even make that strict of an oath when I married my fucking Domme! Sometimes people are wrong in an emergency or you have expertise or ethics that you can’t explain to the person due to time or ethical expectations of privacy. As humans we need to maintain a responsibility to disobey anyone in certain circumstances.

      Conservative Christians take their lifestyle bdsm too far and need to stop pushing it on others

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, it’s not like it was just part of the vows either.

        It was it’s own like 5 minute thing, and once it was done, then they were allowed to exchange vows to get married.

        But she had to swear to obey him first.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah like they make similar vows to us when they marry, the difference is ours are done with consent, understanding of the real world, alternatives available to us, and no gender based determination of role.

          Like when I’m not busy being disturbed by the fact that some guy has so much power over my country because his dumbass sub is a Supreme Court justice, it’s kinda funny how aggressively they never see the similarities.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s fucked up. The verses are right there in the Bible commanding obedience of wives to husbands, so anyone who leans more literal / fundamentalist is going to follow them.

      And then you get religious leaders telling abused women to remain in the marriage and continue being abused, no concept of sexual consent between husband and wife, etc.

      This is what happens when your religion is based on antiquated, misogynistic social mores from two thousand years ago.

      When women are treated as equals, not only does nothing bad happen (god zapping people from heaven, plagues, locusts, Satan dancing around in glee or whatever the fuck else), but things improve for women and relationships are far better, too.

      Anyone who thinks treating women as equals is Wrong™ and spells eternal damnation desperately needs to do some very deep, harsh self-reflection to determine how they have become so twisted.