published Thursday, November 17th, 2011

Tainted justice(s)

As members of the United States Supreme Court, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are not technically bound by the "Code of Conduct for United States Judges." Still, it is considered appropriate for them to uphold the principles of the ethics code that is binding on all other U.S. Federal District and Appellate judges. At the least, they are widely expected not to be blatantly contemptuous of those standards. Alas, they apparently can't be bothered with the ethical standards that govern federal judges a rank of two beneath themselves.

That was again made appallingly clear last Thursday. That's when they met with their Supreme Court colleagues to consider whether to officially review the constitutionality of the nation's landmark health care reform. After hours of deliberation on the challenges to the sweeping reform law by 26 Republican-governed states, they agree to hear the lawsuit -- a decision the court officially announced Tuesday. They considered it such an important case that they booked a record 5.5 hours for the arguments next March on the case, which many analysts believe will roil the presidential election currents when the court's decision is delivered in June.

And a few hours later last Thursday, they appeared as honored guests and principal participants at the annual dinner of the Federalist Society, an arch conservative group whose members and sponsors vociferously oppose the reform act, including some that are active participants in arguing or funding the lawsuit against it.

The dinner, the program prominently noted, was sponsored by five corporations, including Pfizer Inc., the giant pharmaceutical company with a huge stake in the outcome of the lawsuit. Another listed sponsor was Bancroft PLLC, the law firm of Paul Clement, who was seated nearby the justices, and who will stand before the court and make the plaintiffs' argument against the health care reform act.

Justices Scalia and Thomas were not merely guests at the dinner. Though they have long attended Federalist Society dinners, they were especially honored at Thursday's event. As the program for the dinner highlighted, Justice Thomas was introduced by C. Boyden Gray, a prominent member of prior Republican administrations. Justice Scalia was introduced by former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese II, who is now with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

If a lower-ranking federal judge had attended that dinner, or been such a guest of honor, he or she would have been in violation of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. The pertinent part of the Code 4C says: "A judge may attend fund-raising events of law-related and other organizations, although the judge may not be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program of such an event." (Emphasis ours.)

Attorneys may not openly criticize high court justices, but others will. Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, a respected nonpartisan, public advocacy group, offered justifiably harsh criticism. "This stunning breach of ethics and indifference to the code belies claims by several justices that the court abides by the same rules that apply to all other federal judges," he said.

Neither justice seems to care. In fact, Justice Thomas has yet to recuse himself from any cases connected to his wife's lucrative lobbying business. He also has attended -- and claimed expenses for -- a four-day retreat at a posh Palm Springs spa sponsored by the conservative megabillionaire Koch brothers.

The retreat was one in a regular semi-annual series (Justice Scalia has also attended) sponsored by the Koch brothers to consider strategies by wealthy and influential Republican donors to counter "climate change alarmism and the move to socialized health care ... (and) the regulatory assault on energy" and progressive taxes on the super wealthy.

Small wonder Scalia and Thomas were ready supporters last year of the Citizens United ruling, which endowed corporations and unions as essentially super-citizens -- above the campaign finance laws that apply to real human beings in American -- and gave them the right to freely use corporate and union money without limits or restrictions to elect or defeat political candidates.

The justices' blatant embrace of politically and ideologically charged organizations and corporatist policies undermines the appearance -- indeed, the hope -- of impartiality and taints their judicial rulings beyond any conscionable limit. Unfortunately, absent their own conscience, there is nothing to restrain them, or to ensure impartial rulings in behalf of social justice for the nation.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Rickaroo said...

To be appointed a U.S. Supreme Court judge is a sacred honor and should be considered as such by everyone fortunate enough to be one. NO federal judge, at any level, should hang out or mingle with political ideologues for ANY reason. There should not be even the APPEARANCE of impropriety or conflict of interest in deciding any and all cases before them. The fact that Thomas and Scalia so cavalierly flaunt their dealings with people and organizations that clearly compromise their integrity shows just how little integrity they have in the first place.

I find it incomprehensible that there is no accountability for the conduct of Supeme Court justices. There is a bill before Congress called the Supreme Court Transparency & Disclosure Act and it would would apply the current Code of Conduct governing all federal judges to Supreme Court justices, which is as it should be. This bill really needs to pass. But I seriously doubt that the bums in congress will pass it. Most of them are just as tainted with their own conflicts of interest and lobbyist money anyway.

November 17, 2011 at 1:14 a.m.
acerigger said...

This situation is just one more in a series of shameful examples of why the "Occupy" movement is necessary.Another issue that will be on the list of the people's demands.

November 17, 2011 at 10:57 a.m.
gjuster said...

You may have made a good point had you included the liberal side of the judges - like Kagan working on Obamacare and then not rescuing herself - or the liberal judges that are involved politically - then you would have written a good editorial. Instead - you are just a political hack concerned about protecting your side - instead of the truth.

November 18, 2011 at 6:09 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.