Roberts Prefers Not To

There have been repeated stories about Justice Thomas' failing to disclose and his palsy-walsy with rich donors.  The stuff isn't new but we got some new details. Then, we got a failure to disclose for Gorsuch involving selling a house, suspiciously timed with his confirmation.  

Toss in what the Supreme Court and lower courts are doing decision-wise, this has been getting a lot of controversy.  There is more and more demand for a binding ethics code for justices. Over ten years ago, Roberts explained how the rules only really apply to lower court justices, though justices voluntarily follow them.  Here is a FAS report as well.  

Sen. Durbin, the chair of the judiciary, requested that Roberts (and/or someone else) come to talk to the committee next week.  He noted, for instance, that Scalia and Breyer came to talk about various matters, including ethics.  I saw a reference as well that Roberts himself talked about ethics to Congress directly in the past.  I'm not sure of the details. There are so many.

Durbin also pushed Roberts to investigate Thomas. Roberts instead referred the request from Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin to the Judicial Conference, which serves as the policy-making body of the federal courts. (Sen. Whitehouse supported that path anyhow.) Durbin, when asked, said he didn't ask Thomas to come since Thomas would probably say "no." 

Roberts said "no" to showing up, adding an appendix (signed by each justice) to summarize the current ethics rules.  As various people note, the letter is bullshit, and the appendix is not too much better (especially since the liberals signed on to this portion).  Roberts is concerned about the separation of powers, but grants justices did show up and talked about various subjects.  Why are things like funding (salaries are expressly cited in Art. III) okay but not ethics? Again, the subject was talked about in the past.  

The Slate piece cites the Vox reporter. One of his pieces blames the Constitution, but we had that for over two hundred years, and federal judges as a whole have life tenure.  Only SCOTUS doesn't have a binding ethics policy.  As Steve Vladeck noted, in the past, the Supreme Court was regulated in a range of ways.  Congress can regulate them more today.

The Roberts letter includes the appendix to help deal with "misconceptions" but don't think there are too many.  I think the misconceptions might be on their end. And, Kagan apparently joking about the situation is not too appreciated.  Kagan has had thin skin in the past when she thought people were attacking the Court.  Sotomayor references the importance of pushing for change but then joins with Gorsuch in "my friend" statements when he refuses to wear a mask.  

Feinstein is still out, so the Senate Judiciary Committee is evenly divided, but even if they tried to subpoena Roberts (try it, sure), he would declare privilege. Yes, it should be deemed bullshit, but if Trump flunkies can stonewall for years, even during impeachment, good luck with pressing the point.  I do think they should push it.  You pick your spots, and this is a good moment.  A "bipartisan" ethics bill was also proposed by Murkowski and Angus from Maine.  The Senate Dems can hold the court's budget hostage.

Meanwhile, the report (of course they don't post this on the website) is that there won't be any opinions of the court (still around 45 left) until at least May 11.  There will be scheduled orders days before then.  

ETA: Durbin followed up with a "Can you clarify this" letter.  Come on.  At least, send it to or "cc" each justice. They each signed the attachment.  Really, they look like powerless clowns here. 

The Dems.  (The letter got a brief reply that Durbin wasn't too happy about either. Back/forth.  See also this op-ed.)

Alito Comments: Roberts can't show up but Alito can feel aggrieved to the Wall St. Journal.  I read recently that Breyer in an interview opined that the Dobbs opinion leaker won't be found but that the leak helped cement the draft opinion in place. Whatever the motives, that seems to be true. 

Alito, complaining that the opinion has put his life at risk (seriously), said he has a good idea who the leaker is, but not enough to actually say.  Okay, tease-lito.  He does not think it is someone who supports the opinion.  His judgment, let's say, has shown to be lacking in the past.

I put this here since it underlines the state of affairs that Roberts refuses to try to bring down a tad even if they play nice during oral argument.  FWIW, the SCOTUS reporter Joan Biskupic, promoting her new book on the Court during a Strict Scrutiny Podcast, says she doesn't know who it is but doubts it is a justice. 

People are cocksure they know, though they have given different justices as the leaker.