The Supreme Court’s Growing Ethics Splits; The New Republic, September 12, 2023

Matt Ford, The New Republic; The Supreme Court’s Growing Ethics Splits

"A notable split is developing among the Supreme Court justices over the prospect of ethics reform, with two of the court’s nine members openly hostile to the reporting on ethics concerns...

In theory, eight of the justices could collectively decide to strip another justice of their vote in the most extreme circumstances. The Supreme Court took that extraordinary step just once in its history, when the other eight justices secretly agreed in 1975 to punt any case in which Justice William O. Douglas cast a deciding vote to the following term instead of handing down a ruling. Douglas, who was 76 years old at the time, was partially paralyzed by a series of strokes and refused to retire despite—or perhaps because of—his deteriorating mental condition, forcing the court’s hand. (He eventually stepped down that November.) Beyond that exceptional collective step, however, the individual justices have no ability to substantively check one another...

To that end, it’s not clear yet whether these public remarks fully reflect the stances that the justices are taking when talking amongst themselves. (As you may have gathered from a head count of the justices mentioned, not all of them have spoken publicly about it yet.) If this is the way the winds are blowing, however, then Thomas and Alito might find themselves in an uncomfortable position. It would be awkward, to say the least, for the two justices who’ve received the most scrutiny to be the ones most resistant to reform."

Editorial: The Supreme Court has ignored ethics oversight. Time for Congress to act; Los Angeles Times, July 20, 2023

THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD , Los Angeles Times; Editorial: The Supreme Court has ignored ethics oversight. Time for Congress to act

"Congress must begin the process of enacting reforms that the court itself has refused to undertake."

Don’t downplay Sonia Sotomayor’s poor conduct. Fix it.; MSNBC, July 13, 2023

 Zeeshan Aleem, MSNBC ; Don’t downplay Sonia Sotomayor’s poor conduct. Fix it.

"The response from some liberal commentators has been to downplay the matter. They correctly point out that Sotomayor’s impropriety is minor in comparison to recent ethics scandals involving fellow Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who have been lavished with vacations and gifts from billionaire GOP activists. But a purely comparative lens distracts from the problem. Once again we’re seeing that the Supreme Court has no guardrails against exploitation of power, whether large or small, liberal justice or conservative. And that makes ethics reform at the court even more necessary...

On yet another occasion, an aide said the number of books a library had purchased in advance of an event was “definitely not enough,” prompting library staff members to push back by saying it was a book publisher and bookseller matter...

Sotomayor’s recently revealed conduct isn’t even close to the worst of the things we’ve learned about how justices have inappropriately used their power. But an error is an error. That it’s a liberal Supreme Court justice doesn’t make me more inclined to dismiss it — it makes me less so: I expect more from people whose ideology should make them more vigilant against misuse of power. It’s a reminder that we need rules rather than blind trust to protect the public. The solution here is not to point the finger elsewhere, but to call with even more urgency for Supreme Court ethics reform through Congress."

The Tragedy of John Roberts; The New York Times, July 3, 2023

Jeff Shesol, The New York Times ; The Tragedy of John Roberts

"The chief justice is portrayed by some as a tragic figure, powerless to save his court from itself. But the tragedy of John Roberts is that he does have the power to restore some measure of the court’s reputation — he just hasn’t used it...

This term will likely be remembered as the year the Supreme Court, led by its chief justice, ended race-conscious admissions at the nation’s colleges and universities. But the larger story of this term has been one of ethical rot and official indifference...

But the appearance of impropriety cannot simply be waved away. It cannot be ruled inadmissible in the court of public opinion. To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, we know it when we see it — and indeed, we have seen a good deal of it. Perhaps, behind the scenes, the chief is working toward reform. Perhaps he has admonished his colleagues, urged restraint. If so, he has failed. To redeem the reputation of his court, he must do more to put his house in order."