The Supreme Court needs to clean up its act.
Chief Justice Roberts should take clear, bold, publicly-visible action.
 |
| News.Gallup.com |
It just looks bad when one has a spouse actively working with partisans to do something of enormous consequence -- e.g. urging state legislators to overturn an election -- under any circumstances. It is especially so when that issue will come before one's own court.
It just looks bad when one's spouse is employed by a political party's House leadership. It looks especially bad when one fails to disclose it on the annual forms sent to Justices that instruct them to list the family's sources of income.
It just looks bad when there is uncontroverted news reporting that wealthy people with interests before the court get tipped off about pending decisions over dinners with Justices.
It just looks bad when justices make a sharp reversal of former precedent on controversial issues. Sometimes it must be done. Sometimes it should be done. I accept that reality. But that is when the process of appointing and confirming justices most needs to have avoided the appearance of partisanship.
Chief Justice Roberts has a challenge and opportunity. He should rise to the occasion.
Supreme Court Justices need to adhere to the highest standards of probity. They don't. They are setting an example of lawlessness. Life tenure does not give them special license. It gives them special obligation.
Supreme Court Associate Justices earn $274,200/year. The Chief Justice earns $286,700. A great majority of Americans consider this a princely sum. I have a different view. I recognize that within the circles of prosperous and powerful people, it is a pittance. Their current value as a speaker at an organization dwarfs that income. Their opportunities are great. The temptations must be enormous. Of course billionaires with jets and yachts want to give them hospitality; they have power
Call me naive. Call me a goody-goody. But I think that the Justices--all of them--need to say goodbye to all that. There is a price for the power they hold. They have power to shape America's laws and culture. In exchange, they must be conspicuous examples of probity. They must tell their spouses that they cannot take jobs that look like a conflict of interest. Is that unfair to the spouse? That's OK. If the spouse isn't on board, then the Justice should resign to work elsewhere to accommodate the spouse. If the Justice writes a book and if the income from the book brings into question the impartiality of the Justice, then he or she should publicly announce that all proceeds go to a noncontroversial charity. Justices must not give speeches for money, and must not give speeches to interest groups with business before the court. It just looks bad.
Is it unfair to demand the Supreme Court Justices sacrifice in this way? I think not. Every other federal employee and every other state and federal judge has rules of this kind. Police, fire-fighters, and soldiers are expected to do dangerous, potentially self-sacrificing things. It is part of the job. Probity and impartiality is part of the Supreme Court job.
The correct standard for the Supreme Court should not be "is it clearly illegal." It should be "does it in any way reduce the credibility of the Supreme Court." Chief Justice Roberts should tell the Justices this is the new policy, starting now, and that if they won't accept it, that he will urge they be impeached and removed. They will either stay or go.
It is not too much to ask.
[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day, go to: petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
12 comments:
Amen. Serving on the Supreme Court is a job and an honor. They know what the salary is when they take the job. They also receive fabulous benefits, including the best health insurance and a generous pension. They are tenured for life. What a deal.
They are not entitled to take advantage of their position. Many other lawyers and judges would love to have that job if any of the justices are not happy with the terms of their employment.
As you stated, the standard should be not to give even the appearance of wrong-doing or a conflict of interest.
The more I learn about Clarence Thomas the more credible Anita Hill becomes, although I thought that she was credible already. With time, she looks much better and he and his kooky wife look a lot worse.
Would that mega rich white dude be pals with Clarence Thomas if Thomas was not on the Supreme Court?
Sure, but don't forget this court is the creation of the Republican party which is untethered from reality.
I'd add that if a candidate is a religious zealot or a political hack and lies about it at confirmation it should trigger immediate removal from the court.
The problem is that to be probative the Court needs to be apolitical, hence the lifetime appointment, which makes it a necessity that honesty and integrity are beyond question. If both parties adhere to this standard the Court will be bipartisan and reflect society's values, but if one party is corrupt this is impossible.
Do you actually think Roberts didn't know about Thomas?
The problem, of course, is that Supreme Court justices have become as partisan as politicians, so they aren’t any more respectable. You have to wonder if the right-wingers like to get together over beers and chuckle about gutting the Voting Rights Act, overturning gun safety laws or subjecting women to the whims of state politicians.
Clarence Thomas is so blatantly compromised that he doesn’t even try to hide it. But Kavanaugh’s beer commercial during his confirmation hearings best sums up the quality of the justices Trump picked: I like beer! I like beer a lot!! I like a lot of beer!!!
Perhaps it was once considered superfluous, but it’s obvious that Supreme Court justices need ethics rules like everyone else. Term limits would also be good.
The Supreme Court looked bad over the Gore ruling in terms of being impartial. It has been downhill since. The Republicans have really screwed up the country in so many ways in their attitude of winning at all costs. Add the courts and how they get appointed to that list.
Thomas needs to resign and retire immediately so that he and his wife can visit more American RV parks and Walmart parking lots. Maybe they can get gigs as a spokescouple for RVs, RV shows, RV parks and Walmart. Hit the road Jack and Ginni! See you at the gas station filling up the tank.
The blog raises both ethical and appearance matters. The ethical standards you advocate are common in the state court judiciaries in the United States, as well as in the federal judiciary, as you mention.
I agree about the ethical issues and generally agree on the appearance standards. I suggest you are wrong on the question of ruling in controversial cases. Judges should rule on cases brought before them and the rulings should be based on the law, even if it is controversial.
The problems with the Dobbs ruling are several, including that it was wrongly decided. A major problem with Dobbs is that it was political, brought about entirely through a partisan political process.
We are not going to repair the problem of the politicalization of the Supreme Court until both parties return to making appointments and confirmations based on an effort of choosing justices by merit. Although the Republicans have temporarily won this political battle, the Democrats are promising a renewed effort to out-politicize them.
Ghandi's words come to mind: "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." Democrats should unilaterally disavow choosing judges and justices on the basis of politics and, of course, Republicans should follow suit. Until we make this change, we will continue down this tawdry road of politics deciding legal issues.
Under our current system of choosing federal judges, to which both parties adhere, we could not have had Justices like Oliver Wendell Holmes or Felix Frankfurter or any of the greats. Surprisingly, at least to some, is that many states adhere to a merit system in choosing judges.
Keep in mind that not one of the seven justices who brought us the Roe v. Wade decision had been chosen on the basis of his adherence to a pro-abortion position. I can't remember without researching, but I think we would find that all seven had been confirmed by large bi-partisan majorities in the Senate.
The admonition of the Torah in Deuteronomy 16:18-21:9 of "Justice, justice shall you pursue," and choosing judges who would decide fairly and take no bribes, would serve us well in our secular government.
Merrick Garland was a centrist, non-ideological choice. Obama tried to do as Phil Arnold suggested. Mitch McConnell didn't take the cease-fire overture. Alas.
Peter Sage
Dobbs was decided 6/3. with the three Trump appointments all having agreed that Roe was settled Law during their Confirmation Hearings, and a number of Senators (hello, Susan Collins) falling for their lies. imho, just one of President Obamas major error was not using the Bully Pulpit to pillory Moscow Mitch McConnell over his blatant partisanship in not bringing Merrick Garlands Nomination up for a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Hearing, thus setting the stage for the eventual Nomination and Confirmation of the one I call the Handmaiden, who lied just as handily as her predecessors about the sanctity of Precedent in rulings from the High Bench, and was confirmed within weeks of the Election, which was the reason Moscow Mitch used to deny Judge Garland a Hearing.This situation with the Court is not going to be resolved by impeachment, because the weakest Speaker (Paul Ryan and John Boehner look like Giants compared to McCarthy in my lifetime can not get the votes, and Shuckless Shumah would not be able to get him convicted under any Circumstances. And John Roberts alooks even more ineffectual than normal, because it now appears to be a Thomas Court, despite his blatant corruption.
Rant over, a good column, Peter, Thank You.
The main problem with the Supreme Court is that the system of checks and balances with respect to the court is unbalanced. The only “check“ on the Supreme Court is a constitutional amendment, which is way too difficult compared with the ease with which the court can make major changes to the law.
Either it should become more difficult for the Supreme Court to declare some law unconstitutional (perhaps by requiring a unanimous decision), or the constitutional amendment process should become easier.
The only thing MM cared about was saving that seat for the next president (hopefully a Republican) and denying President Obama another appointment to the Supreme Court. Fairness, tradition, common decency and the common good were of no consideration. It may have been the most brazen and shameful act of McConnell's political career.
Speaking of wives, McConnell was rewarded for keeping that seat on the Supreme Court open when the former Occupant viciously attacked (on social media) McConnell's wife , who had worked in the former Occupant's cabinet, as I recall.
I don't think my grandfather would recognize this Rethuglicon Party.
It is early the next day, but I wanted to add an additional comment.
According to the Census Bureau, in 2021 the median Household income in the US was $70,784.
Also, for reference, the President of the US earns an annual salary of $400,000. The First Lady is not paid a salary, but does receive room and board, etc.
It would be a beautiful thing if we could fire Clarence Thomas and replace him with Anita Hill. I think she is a law professor.
Regarding the title, Caesar's Wife, although Ginni Thomas is a problem she is not The Problem, so it doesn't seem fair or appropriate to point the finger at her. This seems to be more blame-shifting, such as calling out Melania over the Stormy Daniels affair or Hillary Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair.
Clarence Thomas, not Ginni, is the real problem. He is the Supreme Court Justice, not her. She is not a public employee, as far as I know.
He failed to make the required financial disclosures. He should have asked his wife to curtail her highly partisan and controversial political activities and he could have recused himself (when appropriate), resigned from the court or divorced Ginni if she refused.
The SCOTUS hack's wife is a public figure for both being his wife and a conservative activist. She is responsible for her choices.
Isn't it nice when women have choices?
Post a Comment