Showing posts with label John Roberts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Roberts. Show all posts

Thursday, May 30, 2024

Jamie Raskin: How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases; The New York Times, May 29, 2024

Jamie Raskin , The New York Times; Jamie Raskin: How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases

"At his Senate confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts assured America that “Judges are like umpires.”

But professional baseball would never allow an umpire to continue to officiate the World Series after learning that the pennant of one of the two teams competing was flying in the front yard of the umpire’s home. Nor would an umpire be allowed to call balls and strikes in a World Series game after the umpire’s wife tried to get the official score of a prior game in the series overthrown and canceled out to benefit the losing team. If judges are like umpires, then they should be treated like umpires, not team owners, team fans or players."

Sunday, January 9, 2022

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts gives an incomplete history lesson on judicial ethics; NBC News, January 4, 2022

Steven LubetWilliams Memorial Professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, NBC News ; Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts gives an incomplete history lesson on judicial ethics

In his end of the year report, Roberts' argument for the court's independence from oversight omitted a key part of its history.

"His comments come amid increased calls for the Supreme Court to be subject to a code of ethics, like all other U.S. courts. As chief justice, though, Roberts has consistently defended the court’s refusal to adopt one, rejecting all suggestions of congressional or other oversight. His referring to Taft’s support for judicial independence seems to bolster that argument. But the story Roberts presented is oddly incomplete, omitting a crucial aspect of Taft’s legacy: Taft also believed that judges should be accountable for their conduct according to ethical standards developed outside the judiciary – a proposition that Roberts has politely but firmly rejected...

Another financial scandal, resulting in the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas in 1969, spurred the ABA to re-examine the by-then-antiquated canons. The ABA promulgated the much-strengthened Code of Judicial Conduct in 1972. The Judicial Conference of the United States, with authority over the lower federal courts, officially adopted the code in 1973, as did every state judiciary in the following years. Though the code itself doesn’t include penalties, violations can lead to discipline in some circumstances.

That progress stopped at the Supreme Court steps. The Supreme Court has declined for over 50 years to adopt the Judicial Conference code, or any other, making it the only court in the U.S.without a formal set of ethics rules."