Recently in Ethics Category

If you read this blog regularly, you've probably gathered that we love court hearings. It may be nerdy, but we think they're really interesting.

Real-life courtrooms may not be anything like the legal dramas on TV, but they still provide the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat, and the hurdles of civil procedure. For some Supreme Court observers, however, real agony occurs on the sun-drenched steps of First Street: There's limited space in the courtroom for a Supreme Court hearing, and many won't make it inside.

So what's a court-watcher to do?

When Montana-based District Judge Richard Cebull drew criticism for forwarding a racist joke from his government email account, he asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to conduct an investigation to determine if his actions should be considered judicial misconduct.

That's because the judicial misconduct proceedings clearly define how the federal courts can address district and circuit judges' questionable antics. There's no similar guide for Supreme Court shenanigans.

Rep. Louise Slaughter wants to see that change.

Should Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan sit out the Obamacare lawsuit? Judicial Watch Inc. is claiming that she should. According to its May 18, 2011 announcement on its website, the self-proclaimed "conservative, non-partisan educational foundation" had obtained documents, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act suit, casting doubt on Justice Kagan's impartiality.

Earlier in the year, they filed a claim to compel the DOJ to comply with the FOIA.

Judicial Watch claims that given her alleged involvement in crafting a defense for the legislation in her role as Solicitor General, Justice Kagan's impartiality might become more of an issue as the case proceeds.

Briefly, an overview of the trajectory of the "is Obamacare unconstitutional" legal battle: