ADVERTISEMENT

Democrats press Chief Justice Roberts to address ethics at Supreme Court

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,797
59,402
113
Two Democratic senators are calling on Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to take immediate steps to ensure that Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. does not participate in a pair of Supreme Court cases related to the 2020 presidential election and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.


Sign up for Fact Checker, our weekly review of what's true, false or in-between in politics.

The request to Roberts comes after the New York Times reported that flags associated with the 2021 attack were flown outside Alito’s homes in Virginia and New Jersey.
Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), who oversee the federal courts in their respective roles as chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a judicial oversight subcommittee, requested a meeting with Roberts as soon as possible to discuss what they called an “ethics crisis” at the Supreme Court. In their letter, dated Thursday, the senators renewed calls for the high court to strengthen its ethics policy to include an enforcement mechanism.



The court and its governing body, the Judicial Conference of the United States, have the “ability and responsibility to enforce ethics rules applicable to the justices,” they wrote, but “it remains unclear what actions — if any — the judiciary has taken in response to allegations and reporting on ethical misconduct by Supreme Court justices.”
icon-election.png

Follow Election 2024
Roberts did not respond to a request for comment through the court’s spokesperson.
The letter from the two senators adds to pressure from dozens of Democratic lawmakers who have questioned Alito’s impartiality after the report of an upside-down American flag outside his home in the Washington suburbs in the days following the Capitol attack. The flag — long used as a sign of distress by the U.S. military — had become a symbol of the “Stop the Steal” movement that falsely claims the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump. A second flag carried by Jan. 6 rioters, which has been embraced by Christian nationalists who want to find a greater place for religion in public life, was flown outside Alito’s vacation home last summer, the Times reported this week.



Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), have characterized the displays as bad judgment. But they have stopped short of calling for Alito’s recusal on two significant cases that will be decided in the coming weeks: whether Trump can be criminally prosecuted for his efforts to remain in power after losing to Joe Biden, and whether the Justice Department properly charged more than 300 rioters with obstructing Congress’s certification of the 2020 election. The indictment against Trump includes that obstruction charge.
Alito said in a statement to the Times that the upside-down American flag flown in the days after the Jan. 6 attack was his wife’s doing and in response to a neighborhood dispute. Alito told Fox News that the flag was raised after a neighbor displayed a political sign attacking Martha-Ann Alito and blaming her for the Jan. 6 riot. He has not responded to the second report of a flag dubbed “An Appeal to Heaven,” which dates to the American Revolution.
Neighbors told The Washington Post that the signs left in the neighbor’s yard after a protest included one that had Trump’s name, preceded by a profanity, and one that said some version of, “You are complicit.”







Stephen Gillers, an expert in judicial ethics at New York University, said he initially gave Alito the benefit of the doubt that the upside-down flag was not tied to the “Stop the Steal” effort. The second flag, he said, makes that coincidence no longer plausible.
Roberts must encourage Alito to recuse himself from the Trump cases and give him a deadline to do so, Gillers said Friday. He said Roberts should separately address the circumstances surrounding the flying of the flags, even if Alito does not recuse, because of the intense public interest in the upcoming court decisions that are expected to be announced by the end of June.
Gillers cited the consequences of the rulings in those cases for the November presidential election, in which Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee. He also cited “Alito’s failure’s to allay public suspicion with a full explanation for each flag, and the need to reverse the public’s eroding confidence in the court.”



“This is a rare instance when collegiality must yield to protecting the court,” Gillers said.
It was not immediately clear whether Roberts will engage with the Democratic lawmakers’ request. Last spring, the chief justice turned down an invitation from the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify at a hearing before lawmakers in both parties on court ethics, saying he thought it would be inappropriate to attend. He noted then that such appearances are rare in part because of separation of powers concerns and the “importance of preserving judicial independence.”
Last fall, in response to other controversies over the court’s ethics, the Supreme Court adopted for the first time a code of conduct that applies specifically to the nine justices. The document was praised as a first step but criticized by some legal ethics experts who noted it lacks an enforcement mechanism and said it gives justices too much discretion over recusal decisions.



The decision to not participate in a case because of perceived or actual conflict of interest is up to the individual justice and is not reviewable by colleagues. The court’s new code emphasizes that recusals should be rare because each justice is needed on a nine-member court. Unlike on lower courts, there can be no replacement when a justice sits out.
Justice Clarence Thomas has separately refused to recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election in light of revelations that his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, pressed Trump White House officials to overturn the results and claimed the election had been stolen.

 
Two Democratic senators are calling on Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to take immediate steps to ensure that Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. does not participate in a pair of Supreme Court cases related to the 2020 presidential election and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.


Sign up for Fact Checker, our weekly review of what's true, false or in-between in politics.

The request to Roberts comes after the New York Times reported that flags associated with the 2021 attack were flown outside Alito’s homes in Virginia and New Jersey.
Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), who oversee the federal courts in their respective roles as chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a judicial oversight subcommittee, requested a meeting with Roberts as soon as possible to discuss what they called an “ethics crisis” at the Supreme Court. In their letter, dated Thursday, the senators renewed calls for the high court to strengthen its ethics policy to include an enforcement mechanism.



The court and its governing body, the Judicial Conference of the United States, have the “ability and responsibility to enforce ethics rules applicable to the justices,” they wrote, but “it remains unclear what actions — if any — the judiciary has taken in response to allegations and reporting on ethical misconduct by Supreme Court justices.”
icon-election.png

Follow Election 2024
Roberts did not respond to a request for comment through the court’s spokesperson.
The letter from the two senators adds to pressure from dozens of Democratic lawmakers who have questioned Alito’s impartiality after the report of an upside-down American flag outside his home in the Washington suburbs in the days following the Capitol attack. The flag — long used as a sign of distress by the U.S. military — had become a symbol of the “Stop the Steal” movement that falsely claims the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump. A second flag carried by Jan. 6 rioters, which has been embraced by Christian nationalists who want to find a greater place for religion in public life, was flown outside Alito’s vacation home last summer, the Times reported this week.



Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), have characterized the displays as bad judgment. But they have stopped short of calling for Alito’s recusal on two significant cases that will be decided in the coming weeks: whether Trump can be criminally prosecuted for his efforts to remain in power after losing to Joe Biden, and whether the Justice Department properly charged more than 300 rioters with obstructing Congress’s certification of the 2020 election. The indictment against Trump includes that obstruction charge.
Alito said in a statement to the Times that the upside-down American flag flown in the days after the Jan. 6 attack was his wife’s doing and in response to a neighborhood dispute. Alito told Fox News that the flag was raised after a neighbor displayed a political sign attacking Martha-Ann Alito and blaming her for the Jan. 6 riot. He has not responded to the second report of a flag dubbed “An Appeal to Heaven,” which dates to the American Revolution.
Neighbors told The Washington Post that the signs left in the neighbor’s yard after a protest included one that had Trump’s name, preceded by a profanity, and one that said some version of, “You are complicit.”







Stephen Gillers, an expert in judicial ethics at New York University, said he initially gave Alito the benefit of the doubt that the upside-down flag was not tied to the “Stop the Steal” effort. The second flag, he said, makes that coincidence no longer plausible.
Roberts must encourage Alito to recuse himself from the Trump cases and give him a deadline to do so, Gillers said Friday. He said Roberts should separately address the circumstances surrounding the flying of the flags, even if Alito does not recuse, because of the intense public interest in the upcoming court decisions that are expected to be announced by the end of June.
Gillers cited the consequences of the rulings in those cases for the November presidential election, in which Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee. He also cited “Alito’s failure’s to allay public suspicion with a full explanation for each flag, and the need to reverse the public’s eroding confidence in the court.”



“This is a rare instance when collegiality must yield to protecting the court,” Gillers said.
It was not immediately clear whether Roberts will engage with the Democratic lawmakers’ request. Last spring, the chief justice turned down an invitation from the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify at a hearing before lawmakers in both parties on court ethics, saying he thought it would be inappropriate to attend. He noted then that such appearances are rare in part because of separation of powers concerns and the “importance of preserving judicial independence.”
Last fall, in response to other controversies over the court’s ethics, the Supreme Court adopted for the first time a code of conduct that applies specifically to the nine justices. The document was praised as a first step but criticized by some legal ethics experts who noted it lacks an enforcement mechanism and said it gives justices too much discretion over recusal decisions.



The decision to not participate in a case because of perceived or actual conflict of interest is up to the individual justice and is not reviewable by colleagues. The court’s new code emphasizes that recusals should be rare because each justice is needed on a nine-member court. Unlike on lower courts, there can be no replacement when a justice sits out.
Justice Clarence Thomas has separately refused to recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election in light of revelations that his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, pressed Trump White House officials to overturn the results and claimed the election had been stolen.

Ethics problems = bawlass dems not geeting their way!
 
I've already expressed my views on these issues as non-bases for ethical recusals. But if you'd like a good chuckle, go to the wiki page for the Pine Tree Flag and check out how many times people have tried to edit it in the last 48 hours.

Oh, and while whataboutism is more a game for amusement than an argument, I would have indeed liked to have seen RBG's head chopped off for "political expression" for wearing her "dissent collar" on the bench the day after the 2016 election when she wasn't announcing any dissents. (Then again, I think there are a number of D's who also would have liked to have seen her head chopped off around that time, though for different reasons.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Old_wrestling_fan
I've already expressed my views on these issues as non-bases for ethical recusals. But if you'd like a good chuckle, go to the wiki page for the Pine Tree Flag and check out how many times people have tried to edit it in the last 48 hours.

Oh, and while whataboutism is more a game for amusement than an argument, I would have indeed liked to have seen RBG's head chopped off for "political expression" for wearing her "dissent collar" on the bench the day after the 2016 election when she wasn't announcing any dissents. (Then again, I think there are a number of D's who also would have liked to have seen her head chopped off around that time, though for different reasons.)
Did she participate in a decision involving election interference of any kind?
 
Did she participate in a decision involving election interference of any kind?
No, not that it matters for purposes of the argument being made, but having commented publicly on trumps non disclosure of tax return data she did participate in a case involving a subpoena of such. Again, comedy
 
Roberts is a pussy. His legacy will be one of embarrassment and fealty to the Federalist Society over the Constitution.
It cannot happen right now, but I hope that quietly, and slowly real judicial reform is enacted. The Framers were great men, but much like Trump and impeachment, they simply did not anticipate people of such low moral character on the court or as president. They never anticipated a cult like today's GOP refusing to impeach a man of Trump's low character. They didn't anticipate corrupted, conflicted justices like Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.
 
Roberts is a pussy. His legacy will be one of embarrassment and fealty to the Federalist Society over the Constitution.
It cannot happen right now, but I hope that quietly, and slowly real judicial reform is enacted. The Framers were great men, but much like Trump and impeachment, they simply did not anticipate people of such low moral character on the court or as president. They never anticipated a cult like today's GOP refusing to impeach a man of Trump's low character. They didn't anticipate corrupted, conflicted justices like Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.
Roberts legacy will be one of small d democracy, that is, restoring the rightful primacy of the legislative branch.
 
Roberts legacy will be one of small d democracy, that is, restoring the rightful primacy of the legislative branch.

Sure, if you ignore his Court finding the following Congressional acts unconstitutional in whole or in part:

Bipartisan campaign finance act
Ban on use of company funds for electioneering
DOMA
Voting Rights Act
Bipartisan campaign reform again
Lanham Act
Bipartisan campaign reform for 3rd time
America Invents Act
Copyright Clarification Act
Lanham Act again
Voting Rights Act again …

And that’s just Congressional acts …
 
Democrats are pressing not because they give a shit about ethics but because they want to regain power and full control of government.

How does ensuring SCOTUS Justices operate within ethical boundaries threaten anything? If it wasn't for 2 of them blatantly profiting it wouldn't now be an issue.

Why are you defending the SCOTUS? If it were 2 of the liberal Justices, you'd be all over them, meaning you're not being objective.
 
How does ensuring SCOTUS Justices operate within ethical boundaries threaten anything? If it wasn't for 2 of them blatantly profiting it wouldn't now be an issue.

Why are you defending the SCOTUS? If it were 2 of the liberal Justices, you'd be all over them, meaning you're not being objective.
He's a partisan hack, that's why he's defending it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Roberts legacy will be one of small d democracy, that is, restoring the rightful primacy of the legislative branch.
Help me out if you would - where did the Founding Fathers establish the “primacy” of the Legislative branch? I can’t find that word in the Constitution…
 
Who really cares what these dumbocrat senators think. Like, it’s only their opinion and that doesn’t mean shit.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BelemNole
Roberts legacy will be one of small d democracy, that is, restoring the rightful primacy of the legislative branch.
He is forfeiting the equality of the judicial branch. If the court allows for immunity they will have created a president king. The impeachment clause has proven to be too weak given the Founders failure to understand the rise of partisan politics, and their lack of belief that a man of such low moral character could become president.
Can't be impeached, granted immunity, and you have a king. And, not Trump, but this could be exploited by those who are scrabbling around in his shadows to succeed him.
 
Despite the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and their reliance
on the U.S. Constitution, they never anticipated our current two
party system. They believed that the best man would be elected
President because of his strong trustworthy character.

Today, we are not seeing the best persons running for President.
Instead political parties look for the best vote-getter. Sadly, we
are short changing America if we offer up Trump and Biden as
the Presidential candidates in November of 2024.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
Democrats are pressing not because they give a shit about ethics but because they want to regain power and full control of government.
Yeah. It what both sides want. Always. If Dems are bad guys here for wanting majority, Reps are bad guys for having it.
 
Yeah. It what both sides want. Always. If Dems are bad guys here for wanting majority, Reps are bad guys for having it.

Arguing against ethical standards in the SCOTUS. Who would believe Republicans would be doing this.

Imagine one of the liberal Justices taking bribes and being funded by corps. Holy shit.

You MAGAs would be storming the Castille wielding pitchforks and knives.
 
Arguing against ethical standards in the SCOTUS. Who would believe Republicans would be doing this.

Imagine one of the liberal Justices taking bribes and being funded by corps. Holy shit.

You MAGAs would be storming the Castille wielding pitchforks and knives.
Omigosh. That’s awful!

Please post the link to a Justice taking a bribe. I missed it.
Is the “Castille” the Spanish version of the Bastille in France?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICHerky
Omigosh. That’s awful!

Please post the link to a Justice taking a bribe. I missed it.
Is the “Castille” the Spanish version of the Bastille in France?

Spelling error. Bastille. Bribe by definition is illegally taking money or inducement by gift or favor.

You can use the "illegal" argument but that is exactly what the case is with Alito and Thomas receiving vacations. etc. Govt. employees or agents can't receive any such amenities. Period. Not more than a paid lunch.
 
If Thomas repaid it that’s what it was.

BTW which case was it used for?
He didn’t repay it.

Do you think his benefactors would have to pay for an outcome in a single case in order for him to be bought?

Come on, Goldmom. You are more ethical than that, aren’t you?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BelemNole
Spelling error. Bastille. Bribe by definition is illegally taking money or inducement by gift or favor.

You can use the "illegal" argument but that is exactly what the case is with Alito and Thomas receiving vacations. etc. Govt. employees or agents can't receive any such amenities. Period. Not more than a paid lunch.
Are you full time DNC Payroll?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BelemNole
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT