Robert Reich - Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced an ethics code for the justices. But the code is utterly empty. It has no enforcement mechanism and no mechanism for the public to lodge complaints of misconduct. It’s public relations pablum.
The court effectively admitted this, saying that “the absence of a Code … 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.” Misunderstanding? I’m sorry, but the public understands quite well that the justices regard themselves as free to do whatever they wish, in terms of ethics.
In April, ProPublica documented years of undisclosed luxury travel enjoyed by Justice Clarence Thomas, including private jets and trips aboard a super-yacht courtesy of a Texas real estate magnate and conservative donor, Harlan Crow. Since then, other undisclosed gifts to Thomas have been revealed, all from powerful friends — including a motor coach, private school tuition for a grandnephew the justice was raising, and the justice’s mother’s home in an undisclosed real estate deal. Thomas has also come under fire for failing to recuse himself from cases related to attacks on the 2020 election results — given that his wife, Virginia Thomas, worked to overturn the 2020 election results in the weeks leading up to the Capitol attack.
Other justices, including Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, have also failed to disclose their connections to wealthy people with close ties to the court. Alito did not report a 2008 trip on the private jet of Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire who later had cases before the court. Alito defended his conduct in an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal, writing that he had “no obligation” to recuse himself from the cases involving Singer’s business, and did not have to report the travel and lodging because the jet constituted a “facility” exempt from reporting requirements. He claimed that the justices “commonly interpreted” hospitality to include accommodations and transportation for social events that did not have to be reported as gifts.
In addition to Thomas and Alito, Gorsuch did not disclose that the head of a major law firm had purchased a Colorado vacation property that he co-owned. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s staff pushed public entities hosting her to purchase her books; she failed to recuse herself from cases involving her book publisher.
The new code would have had no effect on any of these instances and will have no effect on future ethical lapses.
The new rules don’t require any changes in how the justices conduct themselves.
The new code has no system for the public to lodge complaints or for any outside review of alleged ethical violations.
2 comments:
The Supremes are seeming more and more like a criminal gang. Would be interesting to know what the discussions internally were like
Sadly, a blatant reminder that the "system" permits some to be "more equal" than the masses. In this case. the Supremists openly thumb their noses at equity under the law and demonstrate their contempt for the rest of the country.
Semper Paratus
Post a Comment