Category: Government

A recent article came out by NBC News pointing out that because of many judicial improprieties that have been going on, that there have been increased calls for the Supreme Court to be subject to a code of ethics, like all other U.S. courts, but that Chief Justice John Roberts has consistently defended the court’s refusal to adopt one, rejecting all suggestions of congressional or other oversight. The article points out that the Supreme Court has refused for over 50 years to adopt the Judicial Conference code, or any other code, making it the only court in the United States without a formal set of ethics rules. Roberts’ stated position is that the Supreme Court has “no reason to adopt the Code of Conduct as its definitive source of ethical guidance.” Roberts says that “every justice seeks to follow high ethical standards” and that they may turn to “judicial opinions, treatises, scholarly articles and disciplinary decisions,” and also seek advice from one another. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts-gives-incomplete-history-lesson-ncna1286943. Roberts has his head in the sand when he suggests that all is hunky-dory in the way that the judiciary policies itself. Contrary to what Roberts is trying to sell, a committee led by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in 2006 noted the potential dangers of a system in which judges are judging judges. The committee wrote “A system that relies for investigation solely upon judges themselves risks a kind of undue ‘guild favoritism’ through inappropriate sympathy with the judge’s point of view or de-emphasis of the misconduct problem.” The Breyer committee found that complaints were not handled properly and the main problem detected, in high visibility and other complaints, was chief judges’ failure to conduct “adequate” inquiries before dismissing a complaint or to submit “clear… Read More

There is something very fundamentally flawed in the way that federal judges are vetted in the appointment and confirmation process. Federal district court judges, circuit court of appeals and supreme court judges are political appointments and are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. Because these are basically lifetime appointments, we should be much more inquisitive in the selection process. Quite frankly, the questions that the senators ask at the senate confirmation hearings of the judicial nominee are getting to be old hat and not helpful to the majority of the population in terms of the limited subject matter of the questions. The public has been quite accustomed to listening to the same types of questions as to the same issues time after time whenever there is a senate confirmation hearing, irrespective of which political party is in power. The issues that are thrust into the confirmation hearings are always the hot button issues involving abortion rights, gun control and so forth, and a small handful of others that have made it to the front pages of the day. It’s the same old drill every time as the senators from each party frame their questions in the manner that suits their political interests the best, and we get the standard responses back from the judicial nominees. And without exception there are always the several supreme court precedents that come into the questioning such as Roe v. Wade and so forth as the judicial nominees sit there looking like trained lap dogs barking out the “politically correct” canned answers —and then wait for their treat. The senators act as though there are no other issues meaningful to the public other than the regular hot button issues of the day… Read More