Given the Supreme Court’s recent unconstitutional decisions, the worst being Citizens United, and given the recent evidence of conflicts of interest by Scalia and Thomas, the Senate Judiciary Committee had a rare opportunity yesterday to question Justice Stephen Breyer and Injustice Antonin Scalia. Sadly, the Senators spent far too little time on ethical considerations.
Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court crossed Constitution Avenue on Wednesday to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the role of judges under the Constitution, offering unscripted responses on issues like conflicts of interest and cameras in the courtroom
Justices rarely appear before the Senate panel after their confirmation hearings. The last such occasion was when Justice Anthony M. Kennedy testified about judicial security and independence in 2007.
Seizing on the unusual opportunity to question the justices, senators set the agenda question by question. Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, asked whether the Supreme Court should be required to follow the Judicial Conference Code of Conduct, which is currently used as “guidance.”
“Every asset has to be listed in depth, and it’s all filed,” Justice Breyer said. “I don’t think that the life of the judge in terms of ethics is less restrictive than the life of any other member of the government.”
The ethical conduct of the Supreme Court has been under growing scrutiny. Questions have been raised over Justice Clarence Thomas’s appearances before Republican-backed groups and his acceptance of favors from a contributor in Texas, Harlan Crow, as well as over his wife, Virginia Thomas, and her job as a conservative advocate.
House Democrats sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee leaders last month, calling on the panel to review a bill introduced this year that would require justices to withdraw from cases in which they have a political or financial conflict. The letter also singled out Justices Scalia and Samuel Alito for appearing at political events.
Justice Breyer said he had not seen a decision influenced by politics in his 17 years on the court… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <New York Times>
I feel ashamed of Stephen Breyer. He knows better and is keeping his mouth shut to follow the tradition of collegiality among Justices. I’m sorry, but the threat to our Republic by the corruption of SS Scalia and Teabag Thomas and the plutocratic activism of the other three Injustices of SCROTUS outweighs by far the tradition of collegiality.
On Tuesday night, Keith Olbermann discussed this visit with Louise Slaughter (D-NY). IO would have posted it sooner, but it just became available today.
No bill requiring retroactive recusal can pass the House, so as long as Republicans are in power there, and as long as the Senate Majority Leader has no cojones, retroactive recusal, will remain voluntary. Will Teabag Thomas volunteer? Fat chance!
9 Responses to “Judiciary Committee questions Breyer and Scalia”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I found the Senators questions and the answers given by Breyer and Scalia laughable. Who do they think they’re kidding?
It was a dog and pony show, all right.
“Something the public cares about” Damm right !!- It is unbelievable the Supreme court is not bound by any code of ethics!! Barbers have ethics—!! All my career I was bound by written ethics codes– It is unreal , difficult for me to even comprehend — The Supreme Court- charged with judging matters impacting on the very survival of the Nation , in effect– have no ethical code !! And it seems tolerate members who have NO personal ethics either—
Amen!
Technically, SCOTUS has the same ethical rules as others, but there is no way to enforce them on SCOTUS, because they are the final arbiter.
Impartial, fair, timely without the least taint of interference or influence from others — that’s how I see the Supreme Court, whether US or Canadian. For there not to be a mandatory code of conduct and ethics for SCOTUS, or any court for that matter, is mind boggling in the very least. I had to annually sign a declaration of ethical behaviour at work and any breach, accident or intentional, was grounds for dismissal with cause (I was in banking so don’t laugh too hard).
And to have to go to such lengths to unseat a SC Injustice when there is evidence of lying (wife’s income — what else do you call it when Thomas previously declared it?) is rediculous. And then he asks us to believe that he didn’t understand the form? A rat’s ass he didn’t! I agree you don’t want it so easy that actions become frivilous, but there needs to be some balance.
And collegiality? When should collegiality trump the rule of law? NEVER.
I like this Louise Slaughter (D-NY) but so far I don’t know much about her. She was the one who showed her support for the OWS protesters. Between that and this, I’m impressed. Now where are the rest of the Democrats? They should be getting fired up too by the voice of the people. We already know, as I said before that the Republicans are lap dogs to their masters and graduated summa cum laude from obedience school.
Lynn, that’s how the Court is supposed to be. A Justice cam be impeached, just like a President, but it requires a majority vote in the House and a 2/3 super majority in the Senate.
Slaughter is an excellent progressive Rep.
Breyer’s been awfully damn blind.
You sure have that right, Jack.