Dave, I’m less critical of both Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas than you. But I concede that their ethical decisions and the words of their spouses should raise eyebrows.
If you read the Supreme Court Code of Ethics, that emerged following criticism that the high bench lacked a document that other federal courts had, you will note that it attempted to address some of these criticisms.
Likewise, it permitted justices to attend law events where they could sell their books. That’s permission for Sonia Sotomayor to hawk her publications as her clerks pressure universities to buy a mandatory number of the books for sale when she speaks. The liberal media have been quiet about this ethical lapse.
I agree that our SCOTUS justices of both ideologies are not displaying a decorum that most Americans expect and deserve.
It is one thing to “hawk” your publications and quite another to fly American flags upside down, accept major gifts from those seeking favors or have wives supporting the January 6 insurrection. This is not a case for “both-sides ism”. John Roberts is either the weakest Chief Justice in memory or the Court has become an unmanageable group of political hacks.
You gotta wonder....This one made me chuckle: "Something is terribly wrong when a TV news director in a medium market and his wife have a higher ethical standard than two members of the US Supreme Court and their wives. What does that say about our country and our Supreme Court?"
I’m well aware of the Sotomayor books. I could easily find stories about it in the Times and WAPO. So I don’t agree that the mainstream media have ignored it.
I also recall this excellent piece written in the Post by an organizer of one of the book deals. It gives a different perspective.
Dave is writing, in part, to maintain trust in our system. Trust in our systems of government are on trial these days. Regarding our U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), failure to recuse themselves is evidence of an absence of ethics and only further distrust. In contrast, in Iowa, the judiciary maintains a strict separation from political activities to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the legal system. Judges in Iowa do not display political or campaign yard signs, bumper stickers, or flags. This practice underscores their commitment to neutrality and the appearance of unbiased justice. This non-participation is crucial in preserving the public's trust in their impartiality and dedication to the law over personal political affiliations. I should note that unlike in other states where judges are elected, Iowa's judges are appointed based on merit. (Recent efforts to politicize the appointment process are concerning.)
During my political career, I maintained friendships with many judges. Despite these personal connections, I never asked nor expected any judge to display my campaign signs. This respect for their role and responsibilities highlights the high ethical standards upheld by Iowa's judiciary.
"Something is WONDERFUL AND RIGHT when a TV news director in a medium market and his wife have a higher ethical standard than two members of the US Supreme Court and their wives. What does that say about our country and our Supreme Court?"
There, I fixed it for you. If we all had high ethical standards, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court. I guess folks like you and me always figured that Court was somehow endowed with the highest moral imperative, and instead it is we the people who stumble upon it within ourselves and our relationships and make it so.
Dave, I’m less critical of both Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas than you. But I concede that their ethical decisions and the words of their spouses should raise eyebrows.
If you read the Supreme Court Code of Ethics, that emerged following criticism that the high bench lacked a document that other federal courts had, you will note that it attempted to address some of these criticisms.
Likewise, it permitted justices to attend law events where they could sell their books. That’s permission for Sonia Sotomayor to hawk her publications as her clerks pressure universities to buy a mandatory number of the books for sale when she speaks. The liberal media have been quiet about this ethical lapse.
I agree that our SCOTUS justices of both ideologies are not displaying a decorum that most Americans expect and deserve.
It is one thing to “hawk” your publications and quite another to fly American flags upside down, accept major gifts from those seeking favors or have wives supporting the January 6 insurrection. This is not a case for “both-sides ism”. John Roberts is either the weakest Chief Justice in memory or the Court has become an unmanageable group of political hacks.
You gotta wonder....This one made me chuckle: "Something is terribly wrong when a TV news director in a medium market and his wife have a higher ethical standard than two members of the US Supreme Court and their wives. What does that say about our country and our Supreme Court?"
Steve, as always, I appreciate your perspective.
I’m well aware of the Sotomayor books. I could easily find stories about it in the Times and WAPO. So I don’t agree that the mainstream media have ignored it.
I also recall this excellent piece written in the Post by an organizer of one of the book deals. It gives a different perspective.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/07/sotomayor-book-festival-mississippi-ethics/
Most important, there’s no bearing on cases currently before the court.
👍
Dave is writing, in part, to maintain trust in our system. Trust in our systems of government are on trial these days. Regarding our U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), failure to recuse themselves is evidence of an absence of ethics and only further distrust. In contrast, in Iowa, the judiciary maintains a strict separation from political activities to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the legal system. Judges in Iowa do not display political or campaign yard signs, bumper stickers, or flags. This practice underscores their commitment to neutrality and the appearance of unbiased justice. This non-participation is crucial in preserving the public's trust in their impartiality and dedication to the law over personal political affiliations. I should note that unlike in other states where judges are elected, Iowa's judges are appointed based on merit. (Recent efforts to politicize the appointment process are concerning.)
During my political career, I maintained friendships with many judges. Despite these personal connections, I never asked nor expected any judge to display my campaign signs. This respect for their role and responsibilities highlights the high ethical standards upheld by Iowa's judiciary.
I couldn't agree more, Dave 💯
Damn stratight, Dave!!!
"Something is WONDERFUL AND RIGHT when a TV news director in a medium market and his wife have a higher ethical standard than two members of the US Supreme Court and their wives. What does that say about our country and our Supreme Court?"
There, I fixed it for you. If we all had high ethical standards, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court. I guess folks like you and me always figured that Court was somehow endowed with the highest moral imperative, and instead it is we the people who stumble upon it within ourselves and our relationships and make it so.
Dave, I appreciate your “yes and…” line of thought rather than my “yes, but…”.
Great piece