The Judicial Conference, which binds lower courts, does not supervise the Supreme Court. “In 1922, Congress instituted the Judicial Conference of the United States as an instrument to manage the lower federal courts. Here are some key quotes from that statement : And they argue they have voluntarily submitted to ethics rules. In it, Chief Justice John Roberts says he won’t testify before the committee. WOLF: The Supreme Court sent a letter, signed by all nine justices, to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Their commitment to ethics is essentially voluntary And so they’re going to keep thumbing their nose at the American people, and they behave more like rulers than public servants. They simply know that there’s no realistic means to hold them accountable. So this is a case, I think, of absolute power corrupting absolutely. They know that until one party controls 60% of the Senate, they’re never going to be impeached. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as giving its own members lifetime appointments, and the only remedy would be impeachment. The idea that you are the law, whatever you do is fine, and there’s no accountability – I get that they can get away with that because they’re not elected.
#Neil the foxhole court code#
The problem is their conduct is worse than other government officials.Īnd so this idea that they don’t need a code of ethics – I think Dahlia Lithwick, who’s a Supreme Court scholar … she really summed it up best when she said this is the attitude of a monarch. And they both trace back to a culture of exceptionalism, where the Supreme Court’s justices just feel that they’re above law, above question and above everything else in the government. SHAUB: I think there’s two things going on here. What do you think when you read these revelations about what’s left out of these disclosures from justices Gorsuch and Thomas? WOLF: You know more about government ethics than just about anybody. The problem, as I learned, is there is very little oversight of the court.Įxcerpts of our conversation, conducted by phone, are below. POGO and Shaub have argued that Thomas, by accepting rides on planes and yachts, clearly violated ethics law.
I talked to Walter Shaub, the former director of the US Office of Government Ethics, who is now involved with the Project on Government Oversight. Numerous good-government groups have called for new ethics rules for justices.
Gorsuch did report that he made between $250,000 to $500,000 on the deal, but the section where a buyer could be listed was left blank. ► But then Politico reported that Justice Neil Gorsuch failed to disclose that he sold nearly $2 million in real estate to the head of a law firm that routinely argues cases in front of the court, which hasn’t helped things. Thomas blamed bad advice for not disclosing the travel gifts and is set to amend disclosures to retroactively note the real estate deal. But it does certainly raise questions about ethics and conflicts of interest at a time when public faith in the Supreme Court is sagging. None of this is to suggest Thomas exerted any influence on Crow’s behalf. Thomas, notably, did not recuse himself from the matter. ► CNN later reported the court declined to hear an appeal in a case brought against a company tied to Crow, although it wasn’t clear at the time that Crow had anything to do with the case. ► Then, ProPublica reported that Crow bought real estate from Thomas, which Thomas also failed to disclose in 2014. ► First, the independent investigative journalism group ProPublica reported that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose luxury travel financed by his billionaire buddy Harlan Crow, a Republican donor. The list of problematic ethics developments goes like this: Independence and security, they argue, make the Supreme Court a special case.įar from satisfying anyone growing concerned about ethics at the court, the statement made it seem as though the justices feel the rules are optional for them.
#Neil the foxhole court series#
A series of findings about Supreme Court justices failing to fully disclose gifts and real estate deals led to a rare moment of unity.Ĭonservative and liberal justices joined together to say in a statement that they’re quite happy with the current system by which they voluntarily follow ethics guidelines.
0 kommentar(er)
