Huh. Did you actually read that whole thing and use the links to the definitions? I’m betting not. So let’s do that now. First off, you didn’t cut and paste from the article. Here is the actual cut and paste:
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
See the asterisks? Those imply specifically defined terms. So let’s see what those definitions are.
“Independence” means a judge’s freedom from influence or controls other than those
established by law. See Canons 1 and 4, and Rules 1.2, 3.1, 3.12, 3.13, and 4.2
“Integrity” means probity, fairness, honesty, uprightness, and soundness of character.
See Canon 1 and Rule 1.2.
“Impartial,” “impartiality,” and “impartially” mean absence of bias or prejudice in
favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an
open mind in considering issues that may come before a judge. See Canons 1, 2, and 4,
and Rules 1.2, 2.2, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 3.1, 3.12, 3.13, 4.1, and 4.2.
There is also another term not marked with an asterisk:
“Impropriety” includes conduct that violates the law, court rules, or provisions of this
Code, and conduct that undermines a judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality. See
Canon 1 and Rule 1.2.
As you can see…NONE of that applies to Kavanaugh dressing down the Dems for their smear tactics and their abuse of the confirmation process. Not a single term there says he can’t get angry or display anger, unless it shows a bias on a case he is sitting. This isn’t that. But hey, let’s see if you are a hypocrite or not.
Since you seem to want to hold to ethics, how about :
http://www.chanrobles.com/codeofjudicialconduct.html#.W6-nAOWZ1hE
Go down to Canon 3.07: RULE 3.07 – A judge should abstain from making public comments on any pending or impending case and should require similar restraint on the part of court personnel.
Now go to:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Given these rules of ethics and law, you would then agree that Ginsburg and Kagan should have recused themselves from the Obergefell v Hodges case, right? So the SCOTUS ruling about same sex marriage should be voided, right?
So what is it…are you outraged because you feel that Kavanaugh showed righteous indignation but not with Ginsburg and Kagan for refusing to recuse themselves?