Gabe Roth | Bloomberg; The One Ethics Rule the Supreme Court Needs Before Its Next Term
[Kip Currier: Interesting idea of "cooling off period" for U.S. Supreme Court Justices, as Gabe Roth describes: "If you’re a justice who, in the last 10 years, has received income, including book advances and royalties, from an individual, corporation, security or government office, and that entity finds itself before the court, recusal should be required."
It is absolutely appalling that these nine highest judicial arbiters in America are not out in front on this issue of U.S. Supreme Court ethics reform.
Shame on all nine of you for not speaking out on your ethical lapses and for not taking substantive action to make amends to the American people for whom you serve, to inspire greater public confidence in the vital roles to which you have been entrusted. Each one of you has a responsibility to avoid appearances of impropriety and to set the highest standards of judicial conduct and ethics.]
"What might be worse: Some court-watchers are insisting Thomas and Alito did nothing wrong in accepting their largesse. That’s a preposterous position considering the legal standard for bias, as summarized three decades ago by Justice John Paul Stevens: “The relevant inquiry […] is not whether or not the judge was actually biased but whether he or she appeared biased.” Put it another way, as the Code of Conduct for US Judges does: “An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances […], would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.”...
Again, you don’t need to verify that X (a gift or free trip) led to Y (a specific outcome in a case). If the X is fishy, the specifics of the Y don’t matter much. And these days, SCOTUS smells like weeks-old salmon...
Ethics rules exist not so that public officials can come as close as possible to crossing the line and then generate a debate on the line’s contours. They’re not policies from which officials can cherry-pick certain phrases that they believe to be loopholes. They’re there to help navigate difficult questions with an eye toward maintaining public confidence. It’s clear the Supreme Court has strayed from that vision and needs help getting back on track.
It’s worth noting that although Thomas’s and Alito’s lapses are the most egregious, every justice currently on the court could be accused of some ethical failure...
Here’s my solution, and it’s not the uber-nonspecific “ethics code.” Instead, Congress should institute a hard-and-fast cooling off period for the justices."
