Good concise summary of the first decision of the term, along with the possible reasons for the DIG regarding attorney/client privilege.

Expand full comment

When it revised the Judicial Code in 1948 to, among other things, put more teeth into judicial disqualification rules, Congress added “that a judge shall disqualify himself if his relationship with the attorneys involved warrants it.”

Am I correct in thinking that the Judicial Code in 1948 did not apply to the SC? From your excellent post, because you mention the 1948 amendment shortly after referencing the Black-Jackson dispute, I wondered if at some point in its history the SC did have rules of ethics.

I know that unlike all other lawyers and judges, the Justices of the SC are not subject to legal ethics rules, but are now free to do whatever they, individually, think is ''right'' with no requirement to explain their decision. Were SC justices ever subject to legal ethics rules?

Some decisions by SC justices not to recuse have been puzzling.

Expand full comment

Is it fair to say that the Supreme Court from 1870 to 1954 is responsible for allowing JIm Crow to exist in the United States?

Expand full comment