The Royal We

The Royal We
Revisited

Let me get all of my cards on the table. Back a couple of centuries ago, my family came from Scotland. I’m not at all into things English, especially into the kings and queens of merry ol’ England. However, what rattles me is the use of the royal we. The royal we means that God and the king or queen work together. They see themselves as divine. English royalty began using the Latin term pluralis majestatis, in the mid-12^th century by Henry II. It was the basis of the divine right of kings. Henry didn’t have a good relationship with Thomas Becket and had the priest killed inside Canterbury Cathedral.

Thomas Becket’s death at Canterbury Cathedral

Over the centuries, various royal rulers used that term. Richard I, Elizabeth I, and Victoria are notable examples. To the Scots, the royal is a tad bit of a phrase filled with hubris.

Even Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister, announced from Downing Street to the British people about the birth of her grandson in 1989, “We have become a grandmother.”

“We have become a grandmother.”

In the early 21^st century, the Supreme Court acquired the notion of the royal we. Even the word supreme elevated some of the nine justices to be above all the other judges in America. Chief Justice Roberts’ new code of conduct.

This is a type of preamble to the new code of conduct. Following this preamble are over a dozen pages of codes of conduct. Interestingly, the list is merely a litany of “thou shall not.” Nothing is mentioned about sanctions if any of the rules are not followed.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

STATEMENT OF THE COURT

REGARDING THE CODE OF CONDUCT

The undersigned Justices are promulgating this Code of Conduct to set out succinctly and gather in one place the ethics rules and principles that guide the conduct of the Members of the Court. For the most part these rules and principles are not new: The Court has long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules, that is, a body of rules derived from a variety of sources, including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary, ethics advisory opinions issued by the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct, and historic practice. The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.

November 13, 2023

I have never taken a single class in law in over a dozen years of college through post-graduate education. Nonetheless, there seems to be a series of typographical errors in the last two sentences. These are the last two sentences. Additionally, no punishments are listed for infringement of the code of conduct.

The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the public has misunderstood that the Supreme Court justices were held to the same rules of ethics as all the other judges in the entire country. Either that is a typo, or it is a lie. The Supreme Court has never had a code of ethics in recent years or from its beginning. Additionally, no punishments are listed for infringement of the code of conduct. Therefore, the preamble isn’t true, and the justices don’t have to follow the code. There are no punishments mentioned. It is a 21^st-century version of Shakespeare’s comment in Macbeth, “... it is a tale told by the Chief Justice, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

ProPublica has reported on a litany of luxury cruises and personal jet travel that Justice Thomas and Alito have enjoyed but never reported. Harlan Crow and Paul Singer have made it worth being a justice on the Supreme Court and having the perks of the job.

One example is that Thomas bought a luxury RV, a Prevost Marathon Le Mirage XL, for over a quarter million dollars.

On the road again with Justice Thomas

Thomas’ RV was financed by a wealthy friend, Anthony Welters. After borrowing the money, Welters forgave the loan.

On the road again. This video was on Jon Stewart’s show.

Interestingly, I asked someone to forward an email about some matter. The gatekeeper saw the email and replied that we can’t do that. However, that mindset permeates our society. It is the basis for racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, ad infinitum. Whites view others as less than they are. Men tell women that they will control women’s reproductive rights and the types of clothing they wear. Men claim they are better at running businesses or the government. Where did men come up with this notion of the royal we? They created religions that said women are second-class.