Andy Kroll, ProPublica, and Nick Surgey, Documented , ProPublica; Ginni Thomas Privately Praised Group Working Against Supreme Court Reform: “Thank You So, So, So Much”
[Kip Currier: Res Ipsa Loquitur. Shame on those U.S. Supreme Court Justices (not all) who publicly and behind the scenes are working to oppose an enforceable ethics code; the same kinds of enforceable ethics codes that all federal judges are bound by.
Ethics has a long history and important role in the preparation of law school students to join the legal profession. Upon their successful graduation from law schools and passage of bar exams for the states and courts where they seek to be licensed and practice law, new lawyers become officers of the court, sworn to uphold the rule of law. The importance of ethics is borne out by the requirement that licensed attorneys complete a specific number of ethics courses each year as part of the Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit requirements set forth by the states and courts that grant their licenses and ensure that they are in compliance with professional development requisites. Moreover, the Model Rules for Professional Responsibility specify the ethics-centered requirements that govern and guide the conduct of attorneys. Adherence to these kinds of requirements and standards promotes attorney competencies, which in turn protects clients. Additionally, ethics-based standards promote transparency, accountability, integrity, and, perhaps most importantly to support and advance functioning judiciaries, public trust in the inherent fairness of lawyers, judges, and the U.S. legal system.
Why should the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, all of whom currently have life-time appointments, be held to a different, less stringent standard than all other members of the federal judiciary?
Why, too, should these individuals who have been entrusted to uphold the highest standards of the U.S. judicial and legal systems be held to lesser standards than any of the enforceable ethics code-bound officers of the court who make arguments before them in the august courtroom of the U.S. Supreme Court?
Any of the reasons and rationales that have previously been put forth by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Clarence Thomas do not pass muster in the face of the ongoing damage that is being done to public trust in the integrity and impartiality of the U.S. Supreme Court through the appearances of impropriety of many of the Justices.
It is high time for the U.S. Supreme Court to proactively institute an ethics code that is enforceable and that can work to restore public faith in this vital branch of the U.S. government.
We as Americans also owe a debt of gratitude to members of the free and independent presses whose reporting serves as an essential check on our three branches of government, and whose work, at its best, can serve to promote the informed citizenries that are integral to healthy, responsive democracies.]
[Excerpt from ProPublica]
"Thomas wrote that First Liberty’s opposition to court-reform proposals gave a boost to certain judges. According to Shackelford, Thomas wrote in all caps: “YOU GUYS HAVE FILLED THE SAILS OF MANY JUDGES. CAN I JUST TELL YOU, THANK YOU SO, SO, SO MUCH.”...
On the same call, Shackelford attacked Justice Elena Kagan as “treasonous” and “disloyal” after she endorsed an enforcement mechanism for the court’s newly adopted ethics code in a recent public appearance. He said that such an ethics code would “destroy the independence of the judiciary.” (This past weekend, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she too was open to an enforceable ethics code for the Supreme Court.)
After the call, First Liberty sent a recording of the 45-minute conversation to some of its supporters. ProPublica and Documented obtained that recording."
