"The US Supreme Court’s alleged ethics issues are worse than you probably realize." - The Guardian
Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have both been accused of ethics violations – and John Roberts refuses to discuss the matter with Congress.
ProPublica found that Justice Clarence Thomas had, over decades, accepted millions of dollars’ worth of private plane flights, “superyacht” trips and luxury vacations from the Texas billionaire and conservative megadonor Harlan Crow – and that, in alleged violation of federal ethics law, he had not disclosed almost any of it... Crow bought Thomas’s childhood home in Savannah, Georgia, where the justice’s elderly mother still lives, along with several plots on the block.
Politico revealed this week that just nine days after his confirmation to the US supreme court in April 2017, Justice Neil Gorsuch sold a log cabin in Colorado to Brian Duffy, the chief executive of the prominent law firm Greenberg Traurig. Since the sale, Duffy’s firm has had business before the court at least 22 times. Gorsuch did disclose the income from the sale on financial disclosure forms, but failed to mention that the buyer was a big shot at one of the country’s largest law firms who would regularly bring cases before Gorsuch at his new job.
Curb this corrupt court's power
It’s time to reduce the Court’s power in a way that agrees with the Constitution. Congress change the rules of how the Court operates around decisions in which they invoke the Constitution to change or strike down laws. Instead of operating along partisan majority lines, I’m suggesting they must have an absolute consensus — a unanimous decision — on any decisions involving the US Constitution.
Require a majority for non-constitutional questions and an absolute consensus for all decisions involving any interpretation of the Constitution.
“But what about the Court deciding the Constitution says we can own guns or can’t get an abortion?”
The simple fact is that there’s no explicit reference in the Constitution about the Court deciding what the Constitution says. But in 1803 the Supreme Court decided that it, and it alone, could instantly overthrow, edit, or even rewrite laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. All based on its own unique interpretation of the plain language of the constitution.
Neither elected nor subject to any meaningful oversight
The Court has, in many ways, become the most powerful branch of the federal government and they’re neither elected nor subject to any meaningful oversight from Congress, the president, or We the People. This is both dangerous and wrong. People are concerned that the Court would have too much power. What if they strike down laws passed by Congress and signed by the president, both elected by We the People, while the justices were merely appointed? Republican judges on the Court have decided — over the loud objections of their colleagues — that the Constitution limits. - The Hartmann Report
- The ability of workers to strike or form unions
- The right of women to get an abortion
- The right of states and cities to regulate weapons of war and their carriage in public
- The right of citizens to equal representation in Congress without the influence of gerrymander
- The right corporations to hide crimes from prosecutors
- The right of corporations and the morbidly rich to purchase both legislation and legislators
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Lord Acton first noted that “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and the justices on the Supreme Court, when acting as a conservative majority that can ignore or even ridicule their liberal colleagues, have become absolutely corrupt. They behave like they think they’re royalty, between lifetime appointments and the unwillingness or inability of Congress to control or “regulate” them.
John Roberts. No other federal court would allow a judge to rule on a case where he owned a half-million dollars’ worth of stock in the company presenting amicus arguments before the court — it’s illegal in many states — but John Roberts did just that in the ABC v Aereo case. As did Roberts, Breyer, and Alito in 25 of 37 other cases where they owned stock, according to the good-government group Fix The Court. - The Hartmann Report
Neil Gorsuch. The Court has even gutted the EPA — the agency Justice Gorsuch’s mother infamously ran into the ground before resigning in disgrace during the Reagan administration — using Gorsuch’s own bullshit “textualist” interpretation of the Constitution to go after the agency on behalf of a fossil fuel industry that is actively killing our planet to make money.Fix The Court. - The Hartmann Report
Brett Kavanaugh. No other federal court would allow a judge to swear revenge against a particular nonprofit corporation (in this case the Democratic Party), saying in his confirmation hearings that, “What goes around comes around,” and then rule in cases directly affecting that organization (like gutting voting rights by citing the Constitution) but Brett “Beerbong” Kavanaugh did just that. - The Hartmann Report
Clarence Thomas. No other federal court would allow a judge’s wife to openly interact with and advocate for the interests of dozens of litigants before the court over decades, and take nearly a million dollars from a group regularly helping bring cases before his court, but Clarence Thomas and his wife have done both, as revealed in a shocking New York Times profile. - The Hartmann Report
Amy Coney Barrett. In the case of Jesse Barrett, even the name of his firm is unavailable on his wife’s most recent disclosure statement. Information about spouses’ employment is required on the forms, but justices may ask to redact it for certain reasons. Despite Barrett’s profile appearing prominently on the front of his firm’s website — the name SouthBank Legal was redacted on Justice Barrett’s public financial disclosure filing for 2021. - Politico
TakeAway: No one is above the law. There's no reason for the highest court in America to not have a Code of Ethics. Fix The Court!
DISCLAIMER: ALTHOUGH THE DATA FOUND IN THIS BLOG AND INFOGRAPHIC HAS BEEN PRODUCED AND PROCESSED FROM SOURCES BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED CAN BE MADE REGARDING THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, LEGALITY OR RELIABILITY OF ANY SUCH INFORMATION. THIS DISCLAIMER APPLIES TO ANY USES OF THE INFORMATION WHETHER ISOLATED OR AGGREGATE USES THEREOF.