SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has said that “no provision of the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”
(Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
How Can There Be Trust in a US Supreme Court Unbound by Ethical Standards?
Justices Alito and Thomas are pushing back over calls for the nation's highest court to adopt any ethical rules or oversight.
Sep 06, 2023
As public trust in the Supreme Court drops to a new low, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are pushing back against a firestorm of ethics controversies involving payoffs to them by wealthy Republicans.
When Thomas’s annual financial disclosure was released Thursday — revealing another three private jet trips he accepted last year from real estate magnate and GOP megadonor Harlan Crow and amending several “mistakes” from previous years — Thomas’s personal attorney circulated a six-page statement tearing into “left wing” groups that he said had “weaponized” ethics against Thomas.
“No Justice, Justice Thomas included, should be subjected to such political blood sport,” Thomas’s attorney wrote. “It is painfully obvious that these attacks are motivated by hatred for his judicial philosophy, not by any real belief in any ethical lapses.”
Alito, meanwhile, gave an interview to The Wall Street Journal’s conservative-leaning opinion section, calling recent stories about him “nonsense” and lashing out against the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced just one week earlier. (It would require that Supreme Court justices comply with ethical standards as demanding as in other branches of government.)
Alito asserted that “no provision of the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”
Ironically, since the constitutionality of that act could eventually come before the court, Alito’s comment about it is itself a breach of judicial ethics.
Meanwhile, his assertion that Congress may not subject the Supreme Court justices to a code of ethics is being used by Republicans to block an inquiry into undisclosed gifts to Alito — another ethical breach, since Alito’s views are impeding a congressional investigation into Alito’s own conduct.
So here's a pair of key questions that must be answered: Should Thomas, Alito, and other justices be subject to binding and enforceable ethics rules? And, if so, how?
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2021 robertreich.substack.com
Robert Reich
Robert Reich is professor emeritus of public policy at Berkeley and former US secretary of labor. His latest book is the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Coming Up Short."
As public trust in the Supreme Court drops to a new low, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are pushing back against a firestorm of ethics controversies involving payoffs to them by wealthy Republicans.
When Thomas’s annual financial disclosure was released Thursday — revealing another three private jet trips he accepted last year from real estate magnate and GOP megadonor Harlan Crow and amending several “mistakes” from previous years — Thomas’s personal attorney circulated a six-page statement tearing into “left wing” groups that he said had “weaponized” ethics against Thomas.
“No Justice, Justice Thomas included, should be subjected to such political blood sport,” Thomas’s attorney wrote. “It is painfully obvious that these attacks are motivated by hatred for his judicial philosophy, not by any real belief in any ethical lapses.”
Alito, meanwhile, gave an interview to The Wall Street Journal’s conservative-leaning opinion section, calling recent stories about him “nonsense” and lashing out against the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced just one week earlier. (It would require that Supreme Court justices comply with ethical standards as demanding as in other branches of government.)
Alito asserted that “no provision of the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”
Ironically, since the constitutionality of that act could eventually come before the court, Alito’s comment about it is itself a breach of judicial ethics.
Meanwhile, his assertion that Congress may not subject the Supreme Court justices to a code of ethics is being used by Republicans to block an inquiry into undisclosed gifts to Alito — another ethical breach, since Alito’s views are impeding a congressional investigation into Alito’s own conduct.
So here's a pair of key questions that must be answered: Should Thomas, Alito, and other justices be subject to binding and enforceable ethics rules? And, if so, how?
From Your Site Articles
- 'Corruption': Thomas Aide Accepted Money From Lawyers Who Have Had Cases Before Supreme Court ›
- Working Class Pay the Price When Supreme Court Justice Secretly Pal Around With Right-Wing Billionaires ›
- With No GOP Support, Senate Panel Passes Bill Requiring Supreme Court to Adopt Ethics Code ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Robert Reich
Robert Reich is professor emeritus of public policy at Berkeley and former US secretary of labor. His latest book is the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Coming Up Short."
As public trust in the Supreme Court drops to a new low, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are pushing back against a firestorm of ethics controversies involving payoffs to them by wealthy Republicans.
When Thomas’s annual financial disclosure was released Thursday — revealing another three private jet trips he accepted last year from real estate magnate and GOP megadonor Harlan Crow and amending several “mistakes” from previous years — Thomas’s personal attorney circulated a six-page statement tearing into “left wing” groups that he said had “weaponized” ethics against Thomas.
“No Justice, Justice Thomas included, should be subjected to such political blood sport,” Thomas’s attorney wrote. “It is painfully obvious that these attacks are motivated by hatred for his judicial philosophy, not by any real belief in any ethical lapses.”
Alito, meanwhile, gave an interview to The Wall Street Journal’s conservative-leaning opinion section, calling recent stories about him “nonsense” and lashing out against the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced just one week earlier. (It would require that Supreme Court justices comply with ethical standards as demanding as in other branches of government.)
Alito asserted that “no provision of the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”
Ironically, since the constitutionality of that act could eventually come before the court, Alito’s comment about it is itself a breach of judicial ethics.
Meanwhile, his assertion that Congress may not subject the Supreme Court justices to a code of ethics is being used by Republicans to block an inquiry into undisclosed gifts to Alito — another ethical breach, since Alito’s views are impeding a congressional investigation into Alito’s own conduct.
So here's a pair of key questions that must be answered: Should Thomas, Alito, and other justices be subject to binding and enforceable ethics rules? And, if so, how?
From Your Site Articles
- 'Corruption': Thomas Aide Accepted Money From Lawyers Who Have Had Cases Before Supreme Court ›
- Working Class Pay the Price When Supreme Court Justice Secretly Pal Around With Right-Wing Billionaires ›
- With No GOP Support, Senate Panel Passes Bill Requiring Supreme Court to Adopt Ethics Code ›
Related Articles Around the Web
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.