Yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts told Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and the American people that the Supreme Court of the United States, apparently alone among all institutions of American government, doesn't need formally binding ethics rules and has no intention of adopting any. In a terse statement, the Chief Justice flatly rejected a recommendation by Chairman Leahy and Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, Franken, and Blumenthal that the Court voluntarily, explicitly, and formally adopt the same Code of Conduct that governs every other federal judge.
All federal judges are required to abide by a set of ethics rules spelled out in the Code, which includes many general guidelines, and also specific common-sense prohibitions on engaging in political activity and being active participants in fundraisers. These rules are designed to protect individual judges -- and the judicial system as a whole -- from even the appearance of partiality or impropriety so that the American people can have complete confidence that federal judges act without personal bias or political agenda.
But there are nine federal jurists who are exempt. The Code does not formally apply to the Supreme Court of the United States, except, perhaps, as "guidance." Because the Code has never been formally adopted by the Court, it may be followed -- or not -- at the whim of individual justices, the chief justice's assertions that justices are always models of ethical behavior notwithstanding.
Regrettably, the record shows that even though justices have asserted that they abide voluntarily by the Code, the recent behavior by several of them demonstrates that either they don't understand its provisions or they are willing to ignore them. When Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas feel comfortable attending political strategy meetings of the Koch Brothers and Samuel Alito willfully headlines fundraisers for conservative organizations, it's clear that the provisions of the Code explicitly banning exactly that kind of behavior are not taken seriously.
Chief Justice Roberts' statement today ensures that ambiguity, confusion, and uncertainty will continue to characterize the ethical environment of the Supreme Court. His decision will only serve to undermine confidence in the integrity of the Court in a year packed with high-profile cases of enormous importance and add to a growing public perception that our democratic institutions are increasingly opaque and unaccountable.
No harm can come from volunteering to formally and strictly adhere to the same rules that every other judge abides by. Saint Augustine wrote of laying the "foundation of humility." If the Court wants to rebuild its slipping reputation, that wouldn't be a bad place to start.
Follow Nan Aron on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NanAron
Thank you for this clear summary concerning the ethical issues guiding or not guiding the Supreme Court Justices. This was an issue that I was previously not aware of.
You state in your post that: “Chief Justice Roberts' statement today ensures that ambiguity, confusion, and uncertainty will continue to characterize the ethical environment of the Supreme Court. His decision will only serve to undermine confidence in the integrity of the Court in a year packed with high-profile cases of enormous importance and add to a growing public perception that our democratic institutions are increasingly opaque and unaccountable.”
While I agree that all government operations including the Supreme Court should be held to high ethical standards and guidelines, I do have a question concerning the blame you place on the shoulders of Chief Justice Robert. Forgive me for not understanding but was this decision his alone to make? Were the other Supreme Court justices not involved? I feel that it might be unfair to single out the Chief Justice if he is not the only one who determined this outcome.
Communication scholar Halbert Gulley maintains in his ethical guidelines that “a communicator has a responsibility for defending the policy decisions of groups in whose deliberations he or she participated” (Johannesen, Valde, & Whedbee, 2007, p. 150). While the decision reached may not be ethical in the eyes of the public, is Chief Justice Robert’s statement maintaining his ethical responsibility to the group’s decision?
Stephanie Weddell
Drury Graduate Student
You got four on the left and four on the right with a swinger in the middle who's votes, if not always predictable, always advance his personal views and agenda.
But, despite the myriad warnings of unfettered power, from Thomas Jefferson on, and the high incidence of 5-4 decisions along purely party lines many people in this country continue to delude themselves into thinking that judges, unaccountable to anyone, are superior to the people and as well as the Constitution.
But religion is religion, thus their opinions are protected by the First Amendment.
DEMAND of all future Supreme Justice nominees that they pledge to abide by the Federal Ethics Rules, so that eventually such Justices will be the majority, and they can enact that rule themselves.
They're merely exercising their freedom to rule in accord with their political preferences, which right has been established since FDR threatened to pack the court with Justices who would rubber stamp his political agenda; Constitution be damned.
Live by the Court, die by the Court.
It is inconceivable that these men believe they are not only truly ABOVE the laws that they so cavalierly flaunt, but that even to SUGGEST that they follow ethical guidelines is somehow beneath them.
Frankly, I think Justice Thomas should be impeached, not merely recuse himself from the summer hearings on the Affordable Care Act. He has shown a staggering lack of judicial prudence when it comes to separating himself from his wife and her activist roles in the last several years. Alito as well is a candidate for the boot for his endless appearances at radical right-wing fundraisers this last year and his failure to see that that in any way reflects on his position as a jurist.
The SCOTUS makes the United States the laughingstock of the industrialized and civilized world.