It was a short letter
Hmm. So the Supreme Court answers to no one, so the Supreme Court justices can…do whatever they like.
It was a short letter. John Roberts, chief justice of the US supreme court, was brief in his missive to Democratic senator Dick Durbin, who chairs the Senate judiciary committee. Citing “separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence”, Roberts declined to appear before the committee to discuss disturbing recent revelations of ethics violations at the court.
What about ethical concerns and the importance of preserving judicial non-corruption? No? Nothing?
Congress is meant to exert checks on judicial power – to investigate or even impeach judges who abuse their office or interpret the law in ways that violate its spirit, and to affirm that the elected branches will hold more sway over policy than the appointed one. But the chief justice’s show of indifference to congressional oversight authority reflects a new reality: that there are now effectively no checks on the power of the court – at least none that Democrats have the political will to use – and that the justices can be assured that they will face no repercussions even if they act in flagrant violation of ethical standards. It seems that they intend to.
Clarence Thomas in particular. Harlan Crow? Conflicts of interest as far as the eye can see?
During his long tenure on the court, he has repeatedly had trouble filling out his financial disclosure forms correctly. Once, he failed to report more than half a million dollars in income that his wife, the conservative activist Ginni Thomas, received from the rightwing Heritage Foundation. He said at the time that he had misunderstood the forms. That was also his excuse regarding Harlan Crow’s largesse.
You know…you’d kind of expect a judge who has a seat on the Supreme Court to be able to figure out what the rules are. You’d kind of expect him to have the requisite smarts and knowledge and understanding and resources and commitment to ethical norms to do that much. Wouldn’t you?
Roberts may have ethical issues of his own worth discussing.
https://www.businessinsider.com/jane-roberts-chief-justice-wife-10-million-commissions-2023-4
Just further evidence that America is moribund.
The US uses a variety of methods to select judges, including popular election. Trouble with that is that politicians do not as a rule make good judges.
.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/judicial-selection-united-states-special-report
This is the result of decade after decade of elite corruption facing zero consequences.
We are in different times compared to when Abe Fortas resigned over an accusation of accepting $20k, He knew that a Republican president, would name his successor but he believed that the integrity of the court was more important than its political makeup.
Fortas had returned the money to the Woffson,Foundation and canceled the retainer which was to be sustained annually even to his widow on his death.
Abe Fortas was a friend of LBJ’s and kept in contact with the President even after being elevated to the bench. Strom Thurmond targeted Fortas as an act of revenge for Johnson pushing through both the Civil RIghts and Voting Riights acts of 64 and 65. Thurmond
Judges should be hired. No appointments or elections. A bipartisan hiring committee that considers education and experience, like the ones faculty undergo. No, we don’t get perfect result that way, of course not. But we do get a better chance at it, and we are not there for life. We must meet up to accountability standards. Contrary to what some people think, it is possible to fire a tenured professor. It just takes a lot of work (to protect faculty from retaliatory firing, and I agree with that), and most HR departments, in my experience, are sort of lazy.