ProPublica, which already reported on Thomas, has a new article out regarding a possible ethical violation (not a surprise) by Alito. Just a reminder. Federal judges serve for "good behavior," not simply "for life."
Alito decided -- don't do this people -- to pre-rebut the article via a Wall St. Journal op-ed. Back in the day, John Marshall wrote op-eds in response to critics. He did so anonymously. And, they were constitutional arguments, not badly argued (more) responses to media reporting on ethical violations.
Let's not forget that both (unlike the other seven) have yet to release their latest financial disclosure reports, taking the 90-day extension option.
This underlines the need for a binding ethics code applied to SCOTUS, one that assigns responsibility to an in-house ethics czar of sorts to help settle these questions. The Murkowski/King bill looks like a good place to start. In an ideal world, Alito and Thomas would be forced off the Court.
Sen. Durbin announced that they will go full bore after the July 4th holidays unless John Roberts does something. This focus on the Chief Justice is somewhat annoying. What exactly is he alone supposed to do? The Supreme Court does not work that way. They work by majority rule.
The Chief Justice has some influence, including in assignments, but there is only so much that he can do. It is true that he can pressure people here, including by publicly announcing his support. And, he very well could have accepted the Senate Judiciary Committee's invitation to testify. Still, like the televising of proceedings, they don't act solo here.
I think it is on some basic level logical, not surprising, or even on some level anyway inappropriate to focus so much attention on the Chief Justice. He is the symbolic leader of the Supreme Court and federal judiciary with some oversight duties. Nonetheless, a bit of reality should be mixed in about the limited nature of his power.
Let's end with a "good job!" to
Alexandra Petri and her latest satiric look. Starting with a bit of Jane Austen:
It is a truth universally acknowledged that an American billionaire, in possession of sufficient fortune, must be in want of a Supreme Court justice.
Then, a reminder:
Instead of getting upset (which is unproductive and irritates the people who decide whether we can vote and control our bodies), we need to acknowledge that people who want their own Supreme Court justices are going to get them — if they are wealthy enough. Instead of pretending that a code of ethics can prevent this, let’s find a better system so we can end all this sneaking around.
(Linda Greenhouse compares the abortion ruling with the switch in the flag salute case. Three liberal justices basically switched back to their usual sentiments and two new members joined with the original dissenter rounding things out. The harsh response surely helped but yes it isn't quite the same as five justices getting the white whale after decades.)
Solution? Sponsorship opportunities for their robes ala athletes who advertise Nike. Thomas should be quite comfortable, with his NASCAR activities. [Actual photo.]
Like Prof. Leah Litman's takedowns, there is some anger:
Or, if everyone with a uterus in the United States throws in three bucks, maybe we can buy a trip for Justice Barrett and Justice Kavanaugh to an emergency room where they can watch a woman suffering a doomed pregnancy go into life-threatening sepsis before receiving medical treatment.
But, hey, the bitter is helped by sweet laughter. Or something. Thanks. Anyway, I'm quite serious, Thomas and Alito should go. "Good behavior" and all that should have some bite. And, Thomas got his thirty-anniversary coin. Maybe, he can spend time on a conservative circuit, perhaps with one of his former clerks, now becoming judges um left and right.
Alito can spend more time at Phillies games. They are playing better now. Quite possible they can sneak into the playoffs again.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!