Because an article about Supreme Court ethics issues I quoted mentioned a gift offered by a Social Security claimant to a federal judge, I posted about it here. The problem isn't limited to Justice Thomas but he is the prime offender because of his acceptance of gifts and lavish vacations from those interested in the work of the Court.
I thought I was mostly writing for other attorneys who knew a little about judicial ethics but many of the comments made here were along the lines of “Well, you can’t prove Justice Thomas changed his vote because of what he received so there’s no problem.” Let me clue in the non-attorneys. There is a code of conduct for federal judges. Canon 2 of those rules is titled “A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities.” I’m sure that just about every state judiciary has the same rule. I don’t think you can reasonably argue that there’s no appearance of impropriety in Justice Thomas’ conduct. So why hasn’t this story blown up even more than it has? The code of conduct for federal judges doesn’t apply to Supreme Court justices. There is no code of conduct for Supreme Court justices.
The lack of a code of conduct for Supreme Court justices is shocking. Even without a rule in place, Thomas’ conduct is shocking.
8 comments:
Exactly.
Who cares if the gift was from someone collecting Social Security?
Model Code of Conduct for Federal Administrative Law Judges.... but not for SCOTUS.
https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1521&context=naalj
And a big reason for the rule is the fact that it is almost always impossible to prove whether a judge was swayed by improper factors absent an admission.
Because that judge is the one who made the decision awarding him Social Security benefits. The original post is linked above, if you still have questions.
I look at this more from a civics point of view. Courts are there to interpret and apply the law, but just as important is their role to provide a peaceful forum for citizens to resolve their disputes. As long as the public has confidence in the integrity of the Court, the system works. If citizens don't have that confidence the system breaks down.
Behavior demonstrating appearance of impropriety naturally drives public confidence in the Court's integrity down, damaging the system. When the Justice's response on being confronted with it is to do nothing or indicate that they are not subject to any code of conduct, many will interpret that as the Justice indicating that he doesn't care if the public lacks confidence in the Court's integrity, and that he feels it is permissible for him to keep behaving in the inappropriate appearing way. Naturally, that drives public confidence in the Court even lower. It's really sad. Better people, the type who should be on the Court, would acknowledge that what they did was wrong, agree not to do it anymore, and do what it takes to restore public confidence in the Court's integrity.
The problem is, that Thomas has been targeted for extensive investigation by the liberal media and liberals in Congress. While they look the other way when liberal justices commit similar transgressions.
This creates the a false negative impression about Justice Thomas and his ethics.
We had our impression of thomas and his ethics at his confirmation hearings.
Post a Comment