Integrity and Trust — Gone!

Posted on by under Law and justice, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry, Social commentary

Integrity and Trust.  Over the past year or so, the Supreme Court, once the most trusted of the three branches of government, has lost both its integrity and the trust of the public.  I turn to the wisdom of Robert Reich for his ideas on how to restore integrity and trust to the Court …

Three reforms to restore trust in the Supreme Court

On the anniversary of Dobbs, and the revelations about Alito

By Robert Reich

24 June 2023

Trust in the Supreme Court has hit an historic low. A Quinnipiac poll last week found that only 30 percent of registered voters approve of it.

Why don’t Americans trust the Supreme Court?

Because its opinions appear arbitrary, capricious, and partisan. Just look at Dobbs vs. Women’s Health Organization, which reversed Roe v. Wade a year ago today — and with which the majority of Americans disagree.

And because Supreme Court justices have been subject to bribery.

Last week, ProPublica detailed how billionaire Paul Singer, a GOP mega-donor, flew Justice Samuel Alito to Alaska on Singer’s private plane at no cost. The trip would have cost Alito an estimated $100,000, not including accommodation, food, and wine.
 
Alito never disclosed any of this, apparently violating federal financial disclosure rules applying to all federal officials, including Supreme Court Justices.

And Alito failed to recuse himself from participating in a case of financial significance to Singer.
 
In April, ProPublica revealed that billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow gave Justice Clarence Thomas free luxury vacations and other gifts over a 20-year period, none of which was disclosed by Thomas.

Crow also purchased two houses from Thomas and agreed to let Thomas’s mother live in one of them at no cost. Crow also paid the private school tuition for a student Thomas has described as a person “he is raising as a son.”

Thomas has failed to recuse himself from participating in cases of financial interest to Crow.

Orchestrating these bribes has been Leonard Leo, who last year received an unprecedented $1.6 billion donation to continue his work stacking the courts with ideologically conservative jurists. Leo played a pivotal role in the selection of the three Supreme Court Justices appointed by Trump.

What to do to restore trust of the highest court? Congress should enact three reforms:

  1. A code of ethics

Every other federal judge has to sign on to a code of ethics — except for Supreme Court justices. This makes no sense. Judges on the highest Court should be held to the highest ethical standards.

Congress should enact a code of ethics on Supreme Court justices. It would (1) ban justices from receiving personal gifts from political donors and anyone with business before the Court, (2) clarify when justices with conflicts of interest should remove themselves from cases, (3) prohibit justices from trading individual stocks, and (4) establish a formal process for investigating misconduct. 

  1. Term limits

Article III of the Constitution says judges may “hold their office during good behavior,” but does not explicitly give Supreme Court Justices lifetime tenure on the highest court — even though that’s become the norm.  

Term limits would prevent unelected justices from accumulating too much power over the course of their tenure — and would help defuse what has become an increasingly divisive confirmation process. 

Congress should limit Supreme Court terms to 18-years, after which justices move to lower courts.

  1. Expand the Court

The Constitution does not limit the Supreme Court to nine justices. In fact, Congress has changed the size of the Court seven times. It should do so again in order to remedy the extreme partisanship of today’s Supreme Court.    

Some may decry this as “court packing,” but the real court-packing occurred when Senate Republicans refused to even consider a Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court on the fake pretext that it was too close to the 2016 election, but then confirmed a Republican nominee just days before the 2020 election. 

Rather than allow Republicans to continue exploiting the system, expanding the Supreme Court would actually unpack the court.

***

Enacting these reforms won’t be easy. Big monied interests will fight to keep their control of the Supreme Court.

But these three reforms have significant support from the American people, who have lost trust in the court.

The Supreme Court derives its strength not from the use of force or political power, but from the trust of the people. With neither the sword nor the purse, trust is all it has. 

Discover more from Filosofa's Word

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

18 thoughts on “Integrity and Trust — Gone!”

  1. Codes of ethics, don’t, matter, as the, judiciary systems get, pocketed by a, political, party, and, ALL of these, court justices, are, appointed by the, political, party, which means, that, these, supposedly, “neutral”, justices can, no longer, maintain, that, impartiality in their, rulings, and, there’s, nothing that, people can do about it, unless, we gather up, and, riot, violently, in that, takedown of, Capitol Hill and the, Supreme Court. But, the people are, way too, civilized, and, it won’t, happen, besides, unless the laws and rulings by the, Supreme Court, impact enough voters personally, things will, continue to be, as they, are…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Unfortunately, today it seems impossible to find justices who are willing to set aside their own personal beliefs and politics to do the right thing. Money … it always boils down to money. Their wealth is far more important than our lives.

      Like

  2. Maybe I’ve been in sales to long but “trust me” puts me on instant alert. Like any tin man “dis time I’m being honest with you”.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, “trust me” or “believe me when I say …” are red flags. And when a man denies what hasn’t yet been said … you know damn good and well he’s guilty!

      Like

  3. My own personal response would be the immediate suspension of any federal judge, including Supreme Court justices, upon reasonable suspicion of taking bribes, followed up by dismissal with jail time for proof of accepting bribes, even if the bribes were made by someone who has no business before the court! Let us not put limits on only concerned people trying to bribe a court official, but anyone who does so. It will not slways be possible to trace where the bribe is actually coming from, so treat them all the same. Giving these strict standard to every federal court judge may not stop bribery attempts, or the accepting of bribes, but it will make appointees think three times about getting invilved in even the appearance of illegal activities.
    DON’T JUST PATCH A HOLE, FIX IT FOREVER!

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Jill, good piece. I cannot say this loudly enough, but the Supreme Court must be above board. They must comply with a stringent set of ethics. They must report any activity that would have the perception of being inappropriate and recuse themselves if they have conflict of interest. It matters not which party they belong to or bent they have. If they cannot do these things, they need to resign. Politicians who do not think this is important should also step down.

    We are owed fairness. We are owed ethical jurisprudence. Full stop. I do not want nor do we deserve partisanship.

    Keith

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks, Keith! Yes, that’s just it … the framers of the Constitution set the Court up in such a way as to separate it from politics, from partisanship, and that worked well for quite some time, but today??? Not so much! And Chief Justice Roberts, in my opinion, is derelict in his duty to oversee the integrity of the Court. We DO deserve better, but the odds of getting it any time soon seem slim-to-none. Sigh.

      Like

  6. If a judge is found to hve received financial favours They should automtically be removed from any case which involves the donor of the gift. If the gift has not been declared and the justice has not recused themslves, then their service should be terminated. After that maybe there should be another Quinnipiac poll to ask thr people ahow they feel about bribes accepted by Members of Congress in return for political favours. Maybe that could be the next thing to go.

    Liked by 4 people

    • And this is precisely why I say that you guys across the pond see our situation with more clarity than we do! I fully agree with you, but sadly, that’s not how it works. It should, but it doesn’t. Professor Taboo has been doing a series of posts about how he thinks the U.S. Constitution should be revised to bring it up to the 21st century, for the framers could not possibly have foreseen the changes that would take place in the world in nearly 3 centuries. I agree with Prof, but even the mention of the slightest change in the document gets people stirred into a frenzy! We’ve been trying to get an “Equal Rights (for women) Amemdment” passed for decades now, and it still hasn’t been done. Sigh.
      Cwtch

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.