Americans are losing faith in our Supreme Court, and it’s easy to see why.
The nine justices on the Supreme Court are the only federal judges not bound by a code of ethics. It’s up to the justices to self-police on ethical issues, and they want to keep it that way.
That’s why nothing happened when Clarence Thomas didn’t recuse himself from Jan. 6 cases that could have directly implicated his wife. That’s why nothing happened when America found out Samuel Alito more than likely leaked a decision about reproductive health care to anti-abortion activists. And that’s why nothing happened when it was revealed that Chief Justice Roberts’ wife has earned millions of dollars recruiting for law firms with business before the Supreme Court.
There may be times when they or family members are permitted to do something, but it should be reviewed by an impartial committee to protect the rights of our country and our citizens.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Congress has a duty to act as a check on the Supreme Court and restore faith in our judicial system. It can do that by creating a code of ethics for the Supreme Court.
The highest court in the land should be held to the highest standard. It’s time to demand that Congress hold the Supreme Court accountable.
Eileen Lussier
Nipomo
This article appears in May 18-28, 2023.
Excellent letter, but I think it is the second step in the much-needed process.
“Congress has a duty to act as a check on the Supreme Court and restore faith in our judicial system. It can do that by creating a code of ethics for the Supreme Court. “
The first step is for Congress to have rules preventing similar behavior AND also be held accountable during their terms, not just at the ballot box. Having hundreds of congressional members invest in companies they regulate as well as often “get rich” after term is more common, pervasive, and damaging than what members of the Supreme Court are doing.
The importance of ethics is undeniable, but the issue is WHO will be regulating the ethics. Any board or entity created by Congress will be controlled, directly or indirectly, by Congress, a group who have less than impressive ethical records themselves. Is giving a group of partisan crooks the power to remove a justice a good idea? Remember, this power can be used against liberal justices, as well as conservative justices, depending upon the political power shifts in the future. And, of course, things like “conflicts of interest” can be pretty subjective, and determined according to political advantage. For example, those who believe that Clarence Thomas and John Roberts have conflicts because of their spouses’ activities, never objected to Ruth Bader Ginsburg hearing cases involving the ACLU, despite the fact that she served on the board, and as counsel, for that organization.