Justice Clarence Thomas has secretly accepted luxury trips from a major Republican donors

haha what, she's been a legal recruiter for BigLaw the whole time? My god. come on people. It doesn't take a genius to realize that's not going to be a good look regardless if there's an ABA ethical rule on this or not.

 

John Roberts concern about the standing of the court needs to start with him. While yes there is a separation of powers he could still voluntarily agree to appear before Congress to address the latest ethics issues. He could push for far more transparency.

 

I’ve supported and defended Roberts before but this is really disappointing. For someone so concerned about the legitimacy of the Judicial Branch he is directly complicit in removing that legitimacy.

This is a good op Ed from the NYT about it. I’m on my phone but will try to post the text later.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/28/opinion/john-roberts-clarence-thomas-supreme-court.html

 

Well the senate judiciary committee could have subpoenaed him to appear if Feinstein was present. She needs to retire…

 

Until it's found someone bought a verdict no one will care. Nobody pays attention to the court unless it's something like abortion or a potential justice is accused of sexual harassment

 

Justice Alito Defends The Supreme Court In Ways Chief Justice Roberts Cannot
If Justice Thomas is the intellectual leader of the Supreme Court, Justice Alito is its heart.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/04/2...e-court-in-ways-chief-justice-roberts-cannot/

excerpt:

I've grown completely numb to the daily reporting on alleged ethical problems at the Supreme Court. All of these pieces follow a similar pattern. (1) Reporter spends an inordinate amount of time poring over mountains of publicly-available documents. (2) Reporter finds something that was not disclosed, or not fully-disclosed. (3) Reporter raises allegation that the failure to fully disclose that item is a problem, without actually identifying what that problem is. (4) Reporter interviews left-wing ethics groups who insist that full disclosure is necessary. (5) Reporter interviews the same cadre of law professors, who maintain that even though no actual rule was violated, the Justice should abide by some unwritten, higher standard. (6) Reporter publishes piece, which is widely shared on social media, but not actually read. (7) Sober analysis later reveals that the Justice either complied with the rules or made a good-faith mistake that will promptly be corrected. I'll have much more to say about this journalistic paint-by-numbers in a future ABA Journal column. Sunlight is a good disinfectant; too much heat will burn everything down.

But you know what the press has largely forgotten about? An actual judicial crisis: how the draft Dobbs opinion leaked to the press. The media should devote as much attention to the leak, as it fixates on who Amy Coney Barrett hosted a baby shower for 20 years ago.

And amidst these attacks, the Supreme Court remains rudderless. We know that the Chef Justice is unable, or unwilling to defend his Court beyond self-serving bromides about the Court as an "institution." If he thought his shoddy letter to the Senate would quell controversy, he was very wrong. The statement the Chief organized raised more questions than it answered. Fortunately, at least one member of the Court is willing to defend the Court against the never-ending barrage of attacks: Justice Samuel Alito. If Justice Thomas is the intellectual leader of the Court, Justice Alito is its heart.

We see this heart in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, given in mid-April. He defends the Supreme Court in ways the Chief Justice cannot, or will not.
​

more at the link

​

 

it's all about me

 

it's always about me

 

Don't be too proud of yourself, it's more about Alito being a piece of ****.

 

Even if Feinstein was present it’s not clear if a subpoena by the Legislative Branch would apply to a USSC Justice. Congress can investigate and impeach but how much do judges have to cooperate im not sure that’s clear.

A voluntary appearance though doesn’t raise any constitutional questions so Roberts does have the ability to address these issues himself.

 

Do you believe what you posted? Do you agree with the substance of that piece?

 

It's murky waters at best but it doesn't hurt to try. This court is a disaster...

"At the time, I asked Josh Chafetz, an expert on all things Congress, whether there was any precedent for Congress issuing a subpoena to a Supreme Court Justice. He identified one such instance. Here is an excerpt from pp. 196-197 of Congress's Constitution.

In 1953, the House Un-American Activities Committee subpoenaed Justice Tom Clark to testify about decisions he had made as attorney general. The committee simultaneously subpoenaed former president Truman, which was immediately and widely recognized as a political blunder. Both Truman and Clark refused to testify (on similar grounds of executive and judicial independence from Congress), although Clark announced that he would answer written questions; in the resulting political firestorm, the committee declined to put questions to him or to proceed against either him or Truman.

This subpoena did not concern actions Clark took while on the bench. It instead focused on actions he took as Attorney General. Here, the subpoena was issued, but not enforced. In this clash between the legislative branch and the judicial branch, the judiciary prevailed.

But what would have happened if HUAC asked a federal court to enforce the subpoena? Would it be enforceable? Chafetz wrote that such a subpoena could be enforced:

Is there any reason to think that it would be categorically inappropriate today to bring judges before congressional committees? As this book has emphasized from the outset, judges are political actors, although they of course inhabit political roles different from, say, those of executive-branch officials. These different roles may make it politically dicey for a house of Congress to subpoena them—but this is not categorically different from any other subpoena.

Chafetz makes a textual point. The Speech or Debate Clause provides express protection for members of Congress from being questioned. But there are no express protections for federal judges, or the President:

Judges have no explicit protection from being questioned in Congress—in contrast to members of Congress, who are, as we shall see in the next chapter, privileged against being questioned "in any other Place" for their official activity—so it is only by inducing an overriding, free-standing constitutional principle of judicial independence that one could argue that they are categorically immune from congressional subpoena. But why should we make such an inductive step for judges, especially given the other, explicit independence-protecting measures?

Chafetz wrote this book several years before Trump v. Mazars. I think the Chief Justices's opinion casts some doubt on the validity of congressional subpoenas for federal judges, but this issue is not clear cut."

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/07/2...judges-about-internal-judicial-deliberations/

 

Interesting. In the op-Ed I posted from the NYT it brings up similar problems including that there is an inherent conflict that the Judiciary branch is deciding on the extend of its own independence. That writer makes the argument that the Legislative branch to the founders is meant to be superior to the other branches.

Either way this could all be addressed voluntarily by Roberts. If he’s serious about restoring the legitimacy of the court then he should be taking steps within his power to restore trust in his court.

 

in before astros123 accuses you of posting utter trash from Josh Blackman

 

Politicians, elected or appointed, have used their position for monetary gain since the beginning. Some of y'all acting shocked. The partisans remain quiet with their side gets called out or exposed but go full on outrage when its the other side. And yes, SCOTUS is pretty much a political position at this point.

 

If you are caught, you used to have to resign or be removed from office, but that's no longer the case. There is a clear difference between the two sides: Democrats generally hold their elected officials accountable, while Republicans no longer do.

We can no longer depend solely on elected leaders to do the right thing. We need more than just self-ethical reporting and compliance. We should establish an independent body to decide ethical rules and ensure accountability for non-compliance.