'Impartial' Supreme Court Justices Raise Money for Opponents of Health Care Law

Suppose you were party to a lawsuit and you learned that the judge handling your case was hobnobbing with lawyers on the other side and helping to raise money for a group dedicated to defeating you in court? You'd be pretty uneasy about your prospects for an impartial hearing, wouldn't you?

Well, as Common Cause details in a news release today, three members of our Supreme Court were guests last Thursday at an annual fundraising dinner sponsored by the Federalist Society, a self-styled association of conservative and libertarian lawyers that is providing much of the intellectual firepower behind efforts to overturn the landmark health care reform law passed last year.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were honorees and speakers at the black tie event and Justice Samuel Alito, a regular at Federalist Society gatherings, was in the audience, according to a program prepared for the dinner. Their appearance came just hours after the nine-member Supreme Court met to consider placing a case challenging the health care law on its docket.

The court announced on Monday that it will consider that case during this term.

Guests at Scalia's table at the Federalist dinner included Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who at last year's Federalist Society annual conference was actively recruiting members of the group to join him in efforts to overturn the health care law. Also there was former Attorney General Ed Meese, chairman of the "Center for Legal and Judicial Studies" at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that has been active in challenges to the law.

Guests at a table between Scalia and Thomas included a lawyer challenging the law in the case now pending in the Supreme Court. Other tables were sponsored by law firms involved in the litigation.

This kind of activity by members of our highest court undercuts any claim of impartiality in the health care litigation by the justices involved. Worse yet, it clearly violates the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, a set of ethical standards the Supreme Court helps enforce on lower federal courts but has refused to impose on itself.

The Code warns judges to abstain from speaking or serving as the guest of honor at any fundraising event.

Two other justices told Congress earlier this year that they and their colleagues follow the Code voluntarily, an assertion belied by Scalia's and Thomas' appearances at the Federalist event.
U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy, D-Ct., has introduced legislation to bring the Supreme Court under the Code. The involvement of Scalia and Thomas with the Federalists makes a powerful case on behalf of his bill.

 

Follow Bob Edgar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BobEdgarCC

Comments

[LiberalConservationist]

09:41 AM on 12/22/2011

This is just one case of impropriety, but it is the tip of the iceberg. It is time to impeach Clarence Thomas and investigate the others involved.

[Peter Gatliff]

02:32 AM on 12/22/2011

Proof these people think their above the law. Conflict of interest I guess doesnt apply to the SCOTUS.

[scotchleaf]

08:53 PM on 12/20/2011

We all know how those three will vote anyway.

[winesbyrobert]

04:03 PM on 11/17/2011

Now this is not front page news and a scandal....why? just the appearance is enough to disbar them if they were members of a bar. I suspect the congress won't act (I know shocking)

[i the ys]

03:43 PM on 11/17/2011

Crass CORRUPTION at the highest level of our "injustice" system. Long past time to impeach the corrupt Roberts Court 5 but who's going to do that, the corrupt Congress?

[Malcolm Hensley]

11:36 PM on 11/15/2011

http://www.fed-soc.org/

is a lot like

http://www.aclu.org/

See Justice Ginsburg worked for the ACLU.

Does this make her unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice?

[Find the Truth]

01:53 AM on 11/16/2011

The ACLU is neither conservative or liberal, not democrat or republican...they handle cases based upon violations of the constitution....They have defended the right and the left....

You need a NEW argument....

[Malcolm Hensley]

10:44 AM on 11/16/2011

I respectfully disagree. If 95% of the cases you take are backed by liberal causes you are by definition a liberal organization.

[Joe Dallas]

06:42 PM on 11/15/2011

A far greater conflict of interest and recusal obligation -
Would it be fair to have a referee in a basketball game the same person who was the coach for one of the teams in the first half of the game. Of course not - yet no demand for Kagan's recusal even though she was active early.

http://judicialnetwork.com/files/Recusal4.pdf

[Mac48]

08:09 AM on 11/16/2011

I, as a Liberal, would have no problem with Kagan's recusing herself if Scalia, Thomas and Alito did the same. But we know that is never going to happen, right? Those three don't care about impropriety, after all - IOKIYAR.

[Joe Dallas]

09:32 AM on 11/16/2011

The difference is that Kagan has clear conflict as pointed out above - Scalia, Thomas and Alito dont have the same conflict. In fact the primary basis of the repetitive recusal demands are that they might rule that congress's power is limited under the commerce clause. Your basis for recusal is in how they might rule, not based on a conflict.

[TW77429]

04:48 PM on 11/15/2011

Roberts
Alito
Thomas
Scalia

Makes it easierto remember there names.

[Over The Hill]

05:55 PM on 11/15/2011

Right on, brother!

[Find the Truth]

01:57 AM on 11/16/2011

Nice....

fanned/faved.....

[jsgaetano]

03:43 PM on 11/15/2011

It's been a really long time since conservatives cared about that whole "not even the appearance of impropriety" thing. Now they shove their corruption right into everyone's face, and dare anyone to do anything about it.

[obitrey]

03:20 PM on 11/15/2011

You have to be careful...STRETCHING like that, you will pull something!! This article wants you to believe that a "Federalist Society" fundraiser was raising money for purpose of opposing the health care legislation. I was not there of course so, I can't say it was not a topic on the agenda, but it defiantly was not a fundraiser for the opposition of the health care bill, even though it may have been organized by a group that does oppose the bill. So to imply that Justices Thomas & Scalia have somehow undermined their credibility or compromised their impartiality is ridiculous! RIDICULOUS!!

[Jupitersky]

04:30 PM on 11/15/2011

"The Code warns judges to abstain from speaking or serving as the guest of honor at any fundraising event. " You did read this part correct?

The question remains the same. If you were filing a suit against a union and the judge's wife raised money for that union, the judged attended union fundraising efforts, and associated with union leaders would you trust that judge to be impartial when hearing your lawsuit?

Wouldn't that undermine that judges impartiality.

What if the jurors did the same? Would you still want them hearing your case and rendering a decision?

What you find RIDICULOUS most unbiased people deem as common sense.

[TW77429]

05:38 PM on 11/15/2011

So F&F my man

[Find the Truth]

02:15 AM on 11/16/2011

The Federalist Society is NOTHING more than another right wing think tank with a fancy name....They are responsible for the politization of the SCOTUS....their misson is to re-write American law with a quote "conservative" bent....The same crew of billionaires that oppose the middle class are responsible for the funding for this group....

[James Donnal]

03:18 PM on 11/15/2011

Impeach them. The vestiges of our archaic past apparently are want to die a normal death, so let's give them one ourselves. If you're going to claim that you want to clean out government, don't leave out the Justice System! Get rid of these biased clowns who are in the pockets of these organizations. I imagine the pharmaceutical and insurance companies are paying more than the American people these days, and so money talks. This is a blatant violation.

[Find the Truth]

02:01 AM on 11/16/2011

I agree that they should be impeached...but and it is a big but....they have to be impeached in the same way a President is....the House has to bring the charges and the Senate is responsible for the trial....The republicas control the House....

[maddiemom]

03:07 PM on 11/15/2011

Nine unelected jurists have the final say so on matters affecting the rest of us, and each one of those nine were nominated by a president with a particular ideology in mind. Of course it's a grueling process in a congress with conflicting ideologies clashing until confirmation. I've always thought that there was something very wrong with this process, and that was BEFORE Bush v Gore and Citizen's United.

[Find the Truth]

02:06 AM on 11/16/2011

The right has worked for the last 40 years to indoctrinate their team....created the think tanks and programs in select colleges to make sure the corporate and libertarian view of the world was securely embeded in their judical nominess....they have won this round....What is really needed is attention to judical appointments at EVERY level....they stocked the lower courts with these radicals beginning with the Reagan admin...Hell most of the current Scotus radicals worked for Reagan in one job or another....

[AchievePeace]

02:15 PM on 11/15/2011

For those who claim that they can't vote again for Obama because they are "disappointed" - two words for you - Supreme Court. Put another justice on the Court that views the world like Alioto, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts and we will suffer the consequences for decades to come. I am not seeing a serious candidate for the Republican nomination who would not cave to the pressure of the right wing and appoint an extreme conservative to the bench. Republicans rail against "activist" judges when nominated by Democrats but nominate the most activist ones favoring their viewpoint that they can find.

[i the ys]

03:55 PM on 11/17/2011

#12 & counting

[scotchleaf]

09:01 PM on 12/20/2011

So true, even though all that the Senate would let through would be a right-moderate candidate. Even that would be far better than another member of the John Birch Society.

[LeanLeftAmerica]

01:55 PM on 11/15/2011

Impeach these justices -

- we must demand an higher standard from our jurists

[gdogs]

02:19 PM on 11/15/2011

Kagan too? She's more compromised than these 3 on the Obamacare case.

[Bethab]

02:24 PM on 11/15/2011

Sorry to be ignorant of the rules here...but is it possible to impeach the Supremes? I thought they were in it for life??

[DC Liberal]

02:45 PM on 11/15/2011

They may be impeached, and upon conviction removed from office. The Constitution provides for this in Art. 3 Sect. 2. (good behavior requirement).

[alfatu]

01:53 PM on 11/15/2011

It's sad. I guess these judges believe that they can make the law and then break them. And to think they're addressed as "Your Honor." What honor do they have when they are so one-sided and impartial? I strongly believe that it was a huge mistake on the Administration's part to ask the Supreme Court to take this case because they have lost their creditability. Clarence Thomas in particular has stained the court because of his many shady acts. If we can't trust the Supreme Court judges who's there to turn to?

[Jupitersky]

04:33 PM on 11/15/2011

I agree completely. These people need to be held to the higest ethical standards. If they cannot uphold them they should be relieved of their civic duties. Clarence Thomas has clearly crossed that line.