Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter on Thursday to Chief Justice John Roberts to ask him to answer questions related to the Supreme Court’s ethics policies.
The letter, signed by the 11 democrats in the Judicial Committee, comes hand in hand with Roberts’ rejection of Durbin’s request have the chief justice appear, or designate another judge to appear, before the committee for a hearing on how the court handles conflicts of interest and other ethical issues.
The court is currently roiled by ethical controversies after ProPublica wrote about how Judge Clarence Thomas failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from billionaire conservative donor Harlan Crow, along with property sales to Crow. Furthermore, despite Crow and Thomas’ insistence that Crow never had any business before the court, reports show that the court decided whether to hear a case brought against one of his companies while his financial interests were relevant to the cases before the court.
Judge Neil Gorsuch also failed to list the buyer of a sale of more than $1 million in property to the CEO of a law firm that routinely does business in court, according to a report from political.
Refusing the committee’s request to appear or send a judge to appear for a hearing, Roberts attached a “Statement of Ethical Principles and Practices to which all current members of the Supreme Court subscribe.”
“The mission statement raises more questions than it answers, and we ask you to answer several key questions,” according to the response from Durbin and the Democratic Judiciary Committee.
The court does not have a binding code of conduct, as lower federal courts do, and it is opaque in its handling of ethical issues when they arise. Durbin’s letter investigates the court’s lack of transparency.
Tom Williams via Getty Images
Where the court’s Statement of Ethical Principles and Practices states that “Judges, like other federal judges, consult a wide variety of authorities to address specific ethical issues,” Durbin asks, “What guidance do judges receive about which authorities consult and how is this consultation process and any final decision on a particular matter documented?”
The Judicial Conference, the body that oversees the lower courts, reviews the Supreme Court’s financial disclosures and may contact a judge to give them the opportunity to correct any discrepancies or oversights, the statement said.
“What is the consequence, if any, for a sitting judge who does not respond appropriately to such a letter of inquiry?” asks Durbin’s letter.
The letter then asks if “there has ever been any censure, reprimand, reprimand, sanction, or other sanction imposed on a judge for failing to comply with any of the principles and practices now contained in the Statement on Ethical Principles and Practices.”
“If so, what kind of sanctions have been or may be imposed? Is there a process by which the public can file, and the Supreme Court can receive, complaints that a judge has not complied with these principles?” continue the letter.
Durbin and the Judiciary Democrats also asked Roberts to inform them when the court’s nine justices subscribed to any ethics statement prior to the Statement on Ethical Principles and Practices sent in the chief justices’ letter. They also asked whether judges must unanimously agree to adopt any ethics statement or comply with an ethics policy.
The court’s recent ethical lapses are not limited to Thomas’ or Gorsuch’s failure to report donations and property sales.
Thomas has repeatedly failed to file financial statements correctly. For example, in 2011, it was reported that did not disclose income his wife, Virginia (Ginni) Thomas, received from a host of conservative think tanks, political groups, and educational entities for 13 years.
Also, Thomas did not recuse of a case involving the release of some of former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ emails and text messages to the House Jan. 6 committee. While not included in Meadows’ batch of communications to the court, other communications revealed that Ginni Thomas was frequently texting Meadows sharing conspiracy theories and expressing her fervent hope that Meadows and Donald Trump would succeed in stealing her 2020 election to Joe Biden. Thomas was the only vote in court to deny further disclosure of Meadows’ emails.
Durbin gave Roberts a May 1 deadline to respond to questions posed by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. The committee is scheduled to hold an ethics hearing in the Supreme Court on May 2.
Read Durbin’s letter to Roberts below:
Discover more from PressNewsAgency
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.