Supreme Court Justices Unethical Behavior?
We have all read about Jack Abramoff and how lobbying is done in
Washington. Trips, dinners, campaign funding, and other perks
paid for by lobbyists in return for favors the politicians can
do for their clients.
But our Supreme Court Justices should be beyond reproach. They
are not elected, but appointed. They are in that position for
life or until they decide to retire. They also should go out of
their way to be unbiased and out of the reach of special
interest groups, people whose cases might come before the
Supreme Court, and lobbyists.
While other Justices may walk the line of impropriety, Justice
Scalia proudly struts over the ethical line and is smug about
it. Remember Leona Helmsly when arrested for income tax evasion?
She said "taxes are for the little people", or something to that
effect. Justice Scalia has a similar attitude when questioned
about his activities.
Not too long ago, the Supreme Court was hearing a case that
affected the ability for the Bush administration to hold
prisoners indefinitely. Just before the case was to be heard,
Justice Scalia went on a hunting trip with Dick Cheney that
didn't cost Scalia a dime. When asked if that might present a
conflict of interest and that he should possibly recuse himself
from the case, he called the idea ridiculous and stayed on the
case. His vote favored the Bush Administration.
Yes, it might have been in favor of them anyway. No, the trip
may not have influenced him in any way. However the appearance
of impropriety, unethical behavior, or conflict of interest is
enough to make going on that trip the wrong theng to do. And
after doing so, thumbing his nose at people who raised the
question was also the wrong thing to do.
Now, all the justices were at the swearing in of Justice
Roberts, well all of them but Antonin Scalia. He was playing
tennis and going fly fishing at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in
Bachelor Gulch, Colo, all on the dole. All paid for by the
Federalists Society.
"I was out of town with a commitment that I could not break, and
that's what the public information office told you," he said.
According to ABC News, One night at the resort, Scalia attended
a cocktail reception, sponsored in part by the same lobbying and
law firm where convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff once worked.
On a side note, Supreme Court Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has
repeatedly said that he has no memory of belonging to the
Federalist Society, but his name appears in the influential,
conservative legal organization's 1997-1998 leadership directory.
Members of the Federalists Society stated they think the trip
was ethical because they have no cases pending with the Supreme
Court and are unlikely to have. Yes, as a group, but how many of
it's members might have cases pending now or in the future?
>From the "Why Join" page of the federalists society,
"Interaction with prominent public officials, judges, and
scholars". So someone with an agenda might be encouraged to join.
On the about us page it lists their goals as those that bring
conservatism back into the judicial system and "In working to
achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and
libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of
the legal community." Yes it does, evidently, all the way to the
Supreme Court and Antonin Scalia.
More from their website;
"Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public
Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians
dedicated to reforming the current legal order." Overall, the
Society's efforts are improving our present and future leaders'
understanding of the principles underlying American law.
It seems the Federalists Society is a conservative organization,
although they endorse no polictical party, and it actually has
no cases before the Supreme Court and is unlikely to have as an
organization. However, it's membership includes over 35,000
lawyers and that makes it likely that some of their members have
or will have cases pending before the Supreme Court.
So as a lawyer, who presents cases to the Supreme Court, all I
have to do is join this group and have access to Supreme Court
Justices in intimate surroundings, where of course, I would
never discuss a case that was pending.
All I am saying here is that we as Americans have the right to
expect a higher ethical standard from Supreme Court Justices. We
sure can't get it from the legislative or executive branch of
government, but we deserve it in the Judicial branch.
Accepting trips from groups with political and judicial agenda
and gifts from private parties who may at some point have
business before the court should not be allowed.