Alleged Supreme Court Justice Misconduct in the News Again

COMMENTARY | On Thursday, November 10, 2011, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were the guests of honor at a formal dinner that was sponsored in part by Bancroft PLLC, the law firm that will be arguing against President Obama’s healthcare law in the Supreme Court, according to an article in the Los Angeles Times. Additional sponsors included law firm Jones Day, who represent one of the trade organizations that are challenging the law, and Pfizer, who will be affected greatly by the law. Though the justices were not breaking any rules by attending the event their presence there implies a lack of impartiality.

This is by no means the first time we’ve seen this type of behavior from Supreme Court Justices. In 1987 Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee on whether or not he had promised to vote conservatively, among other things, to the Nixon administration before his Supreme Court Nomination. Chief Justice John G. Roberts built his reputation on representing corporations such as Toyota and likely still holds ties to said corporations. We also see justices with large investments in companies that may be part of future cases, such as Roberts and Stephen G. Breyer. The fact is, Supreme Court justices with alleged political and financial ties is nothing new.

I mentioned earlier that Scalia and Thomas didn’t break any rules. Though most federal judges have a set of regulations that would have prevented them from attending such a dinner, Supreme Court justices do not. Though it appears that this is misconduct I don’t think that barring justices from attending this kind of thing would stop partiality or corruption, it would probably just drive it underground. Whenever there is a human being making decisions there is fallibility. A justice will always carry pre-conceptions and will always be subjected to attempts at swaying his or her opinion.

Another issue being brought up on this subject is whether Supreme Court justices should have a limit to their term. The idea is that limiting the term of justices would limit their potential to abuse power. I don’t really see how that works. A justice in a seat for a limited term is just as susceptible to corruption as one with an indefinite term.

I feel that corruption and conflict of interest will always have a place in the Supreme Court, just as I feel it does in all other branches of government. The only thing we the people can do is to watch Washington closely and demand that the bad apples be removed when they become apparent. We need to voice our opinion, and if the powers in Washington don’t listen we need to vote for new ones.


People also view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *