BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label clarence thomas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clarence thomas. Show all posts
20 July 2024
29 March 2012
Supreme Court Might Decide Their Second Election 29MAR12
THIS has been my fear right along about the supreme court hearings on the Affordable Care Act. This right wing court didn't hesitate to rob the American people of an election in 2000 and I am afraid they will rob us of our right to health care as provided by Obamacare. It will be a travesty of justice if the law is overturned by this court.
It was a similar crew of conservative justices on the Supreme Court that decided that their long-held beliefs on states' rights were irrelevant and made George W. Bush our next president in 2000. Now, they're back!!! And they might decide yet another presidential election.
Imagine the damage it does to President Obama to strip him of his signature accomplishment right before the election. It would also allow the Republicans to say -- "See, we told you so! It was unconstitutional all along. It was a wild, socialist over-reach of big government." It creates a permanent stain on the law -- as if there was something horribly wrong with it all along. And it takes it off the books at a moment when it is still relatively unpopular. So, before any of the popular provisions are put into effect it would go in the record books as a complete disaster.
Why don't you just hand the Republicans the election? Which is, of course, exactly what the conservatives of this court would love to do. These conservative justices are given far too much deference in the media. They are largely partisan hacks.
Antonin Scalia is a complete fraud. He will bend any so-called principle to get to the political result he wants. If it's upholding anti-gay legislation or striking down federal laws he doesn't like, he is a huge advocate for states' rights. But if it's marijuana legalization or euthanasia or Bush v. Gore, then he hates states' rights. So, which one is it? Here's how you can tell -- which side is the Republican Party on?
Remember, this is a guy who goes duck hunting with Dick Cheney and attends political fundraisers with the Koch brothers. Of course, he doesn't recuse himself from any cases that involve those people. In fact, he votes on their side nearly 100% of the time.
We've been hearing for at least thirty years about the dangers of activist judges. That it is so wrong for unelected officials, like judges, to invalidate laws made by the people's representatives. Now, all of a sudden, the Republicans love that idea! They want to interpret the Commerce Clause in a way that it has not been interpreted since 1937. They want to invalidate a sitting president's signature piece of legislation for the first time in 75 years. And their hack, partisan justices on the Supreme Court can't wait to do their bidding.
The way Scalia, Alito and Thomas are going to vote is certain. There isn't a single Republican position those guys haven't wanted to fondle. They will enthusiastically wrap their legs around the idea that the mandate is unconstitutional. And they will double down by saying it strikes down the rest of the law with it.
John Roberts plays a moderate on TV, so there is some questions about which way he'll go. But in the real world, he always votes with the conservatives because... he is deeply conservative (or more accurately, party line Republican, no matter where the so-called conservative position lies).
So, that leaves us with Justice Kennedy, who is a genuine swing vote. But remember he is the one that swung toward Bush and meddled with how Florida counts its votes despite decades of empty talk about states' rights. If he sides with the rest of the conservative justices, he will forever cement his place on the Hack Hall of Fame as one of the most deeply partisan justices we have ever had. If he helped to decide two presidential elections based on which party he likes rather than his so-called deeply held beliefs, like his oft-repeated deference to precedent, than it would be hard to find a more political and disingenuous justice.
One last thought, which is on the sad incompetence of the Democratic Party. They should be screaming "activist judges" from the rooftops. Instead they are meekly mumbling about how it's unclear which way the court is going to go and how we shouldn't pre-judge. I got news for you -- the Republicans have been pre-judging your bill for years now. You should consider fighting back.
But the primary responsibility is the president's. Why did you agree to the Republican idea of mandates in the first place?
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was the original sponsor of the mandate in the Senate back in 1993. The Heritage Foundation championed the idea. Mitt Romney was applauded wildly by conservatives when he passed a mandate in Massachusetts. Did the president think they would like him more if he agreed to their idea? No, they have always opposed you at every turn, and they always will. They turned on their own idea the minute you agreed to it -- and now they're using it to kill your whole bill.
When is the president ever going to learn that agreeing with Republicans never helps him? It never helps the country. All it does is make it easier for them to beat you because you made the fatal mistake of agreeing with them.
The Young Turks on Current
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/CenkUygur
Related News On Huffington Post:
Supreme Court Justices Take Health Care Case Behind Closed Doors
In Health Care Case, The Roberts Court Comes Of Age
Antonin Scalia Compares Reading Affordable Care Act To Cruel And Unusual Punishment
Individual Mandate Rejection Would Leave White House 'No Contingency Plan,' Spokesman Says
It was a similar crew of conservative justices on the Supreme Court that decided that their long-held beliefs on states' rights were irrelevant and made George W. Bush our next president in 2000. Now, they're back!!! And they might decide yet another presidential election.
Imagine the damage it does to President Obama to strip him of his signature accomplishment right before the election. It would also allow the Republicans to say -- "See, we told you so! It was unconstitutional all along. It was a wild, socialist over-reach of big government." It creates a permanent stain on the law -- as if there was something horribly wrong with it all along. And it takes it off the books at a moment when it is still relatively unpopular. So, before any of the popular provisions are put into effect it would go in the record books as a complete disaster.
Why don't you just hand the Republicans the election? Which is, of course, exactly what the conservatives of this court would love to do. These conservative justices are given far too much deference in the media. They are largely partisan hacks.
Antonin Scalia is a complete fraud. He will bend any so-called principle to get to the political result he wants. If it's upholding anti-gay legislation or striking down federal laws he doesn't like, he is a huge advocate for states' rights. But if it's marijuana legalization or euthanasia or Bush v. Gore, then he hates states' rights. So, which one is it? Here's how you can tell -- which side is the Republican Party on?
Remember, this is a guy who goes duck hunting with Dick Cheney and attends political fundraisers with the Koch brothers. Of course, he doesn't recuse himself from any cases that involve those people. In fact, he votes on their side nearly 100% of the time.
We've been hearing for at least thirty years about the dangers of activist judges. That it is so wrong for unelected officials, like judges, to invalidate laws made by the people's representatives. Now, all of a sudden, the Republicans love that idea! They want to interpret the Commerce Clause in a way that it has not been interpreted since 1937. They want to invalidate a sitting president's signature piece of legislation for the first time in 75 years. And their hack, partisan justices on the Supreme Court can't wait to do their bidding.
The way Scalia, Alito and Thomas are going to vote is certain. There isn't a single Republican position those guys haven't wanted to fondle. They will enthusiastically wrap their legs around the idea that the mandate is unconstitutional. And they will double down by saying it strikes down the rest of the law with it.
John Roberts plays a moderate on TV, so there is some questions about which way he'll go. But in the real world, he always votes with the conservatives because... he is deeply conservative (or more accurately, party line Republican, no matter where the so-called conservative position lies).
So, that leaves us with Justice Kennedy, who is a genuine swing vote. But remember he is the one that swung toward Bush and meddled with how Florida counts its votes despite decades of empty talk about states' rights. If he sides with the rest of the conservative justices, he will forever cement his place on the Hack Hall of Fame as one of the most deeply partisan justices we have ever had. If he helped to decide two presidential elections based on which party he likes rather than his so-called deeply held beliefs, like his oft-repeated deference to precedent, than it would be hard to find a more political and disingenuous justice.
One last thought, which is on the sad incompetence of the Democratic Party. They should be screaming "activist judges" from the rooftops. Instead they are meekly mumbling about how it's unclear which way the court is going to go and how we shouldn't pre-judge. I got news for you -- the Republicans have been pre-judging your bill for years now. You should consider fighting back.
But the primary responsibility is the president's. Why did you agree to the Republican idea of mandates in the first place?
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was the original sponsor of the mandate in the Senate back in 1993. The Heritage Foundation championed the idea. Mitt Romney was applauded wildly by conservatives when he passed a mandate in Massachusetts. Did the president think they would like him more if he agreed to their idea? No, they have always opposed you at every turn, and they always will. They turned on their own idea the minute you agreed to it -- and now they're using it to kill your whole bill.
When is the president ever going to learn that agreeing with Republicans never helps him? It never helps the country. All it does is make it easier for them to beat you because you made the fatal mistake of agreeing with them.
The Young Turks on Current
WASHINGTON -- The survival of President Barack Obama's
health care overhaul rests with a Supreme Court seemingly split over
ideology and, more particularly, in the...
WASHINGTON -- "I win. Every time." So said Chief Justice
John Roberts during Supreme Court argument Wednesday afternoon,
stepping into the shoes of some hypothetical...
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia joked that
reading the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is akin to cruel and
unusual punishment. "What happened...
WASHINGTON -- White House spokesman Josh Earnest said
Wednesday that the administration does not have a backup plan in the
event that the Supreme Court...
25 June 2011
Co-sign Rep. Murphy's letter to hold Clarence Thomas accountable 25JUN11
clarence thomas is a disgrace to our nation's highest court, he acts more like a third world despot than a U.S. Supreme Court justice. We do not have to stand for this, we can support members of Congress calling for an investigation. This from Credo Action, click the link to sign their petition to the House Judiciary Committee....
| ||||||
Over 200,000 people have signed our petition calling for the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. And we're making waves in Washington. Thanks to your activism, momentum is building behind an effort to hold Clarence Thomas accountable for his blatant disregard for the Judicial Code of Conduct.
Just this week, Congressman Chris Murphy penned a "Dear Colleague" letter asking his fellow members of Congress to sign on to an urgent request to Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith. This letter, spurred by the recent New York Times expose of Clarence Thomas' unethical relationship with rightwing funder and activist Harlan Crow, urges the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on escalating reports of unethical behavior by Supreme Court Justices.
And now Chris Murphy has invited all Americans to add their voice to this effort.
You can read the full text of the letter below. And if you become a co-signer, Rep. Murphy will deliver your signature to the House Judiciary Committee.
Shockingly, the Supreme Court is not legally bound by the code of conduct for federal judges, though Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy have testified to Congress that members of the Supreme Court voluntarily follow the code that explicitly prohibits justices from directly soliciting charitable donations.
It's not acceptable that Clarence Thomas and the U.S. Supreme Court are essentially above the law when it comes to ethics standards. That's why Rep. Christopher Murphy has introduced the Supreme Court Transparency and Disclosure Act.
Under this bill, the Judicial Conference Code of Conduct that governs the ethical behavior of federal judges would also apply to Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas would no longer be able to attend blatantly political events, participate in fundraising events or accept gifts by individuals or groups with business before the court.
We know letters like this can make a difference. When a member of Congress like Chris Murphy takes a stand on a progressive issue, it gets more notice from the press, from his colleagues, and ultimately in this case from the members of the Supreme Court. We need to help Rep. Murphy get as many signatures on his letter as possible before he delivers it to the House Judiciary Committee next week.
Here is the letter from Rep. Chris Murphy:
Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers:
We write to you today to ask that you hold a hearing on HR 862, the Supreme Court Transparency and Disclosure Act. This commonsense bill would go a long way towards restoring the public's confidence in the Supreme Court after several recent questionable actions by some of its members.
The Supreme Court must be a neutral arbiter that acts without bias or prejudice. We the people created our Constitution to "establish justice," and the promise that Supreme Court justices abide by the rule of law and not political influence or ideology is at the foundation of who we are as a country.
This bedrock principle is important with the prospect that the Supreme Court will eventually rule on the constitutionality of legislation debated by this Congress, like the Affordable Care Act. Whatever the justices decide, the legitimacy of their decisions depend on whether the American people believe them to be impartial and above any particular political or financial interests.
Yet, there have been alarming reports of justices — most notably Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — attending political events and using their position to fundraise for organizations. These activities would be prohibited if the justices were required to abide by the Judicial Conference Code of Conduct, which currently applies to all other federal judges. On these issues the code is quite clear. Canon 4C states that "a judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of the judicial office for that purpose." Additionally, in Canon 5 the code states, "[a] judge must refrain from all political activity." While we understand that the Supreme Court is unique by its very nature, we do not believe there should be one set of guidelines for Supreme Court justices and stricter standards for all others judges.
The Supreme Court possesses the incredible power to interpret or even strike down laws they deem inconsistent with the Constitution. America trusts them with this power because justices must come to each case without a personal or financial stake in the outcome. Recent revelations about Justice Thomas accepting tens of thousands of dollars' worth of gifts from individuals and organizations who often have an interest in matters before the courts calls into question the Court's impartiality. Canon 4D of the Code of Conduct incorporates regulations providing that "[a] judicial officer or employee shall not accept a gift from anyone who is seeking official action from or doing business with the court." Yet Justice Thomas received a gift valued at $15,000 from an organization that had a brief pending before his Court at the very moment they gave him the gift. Incidents such as these undermine the integrity of the entire judiciary, and they should not be allowed to continue.
The Supreme Court Transparency and Disclosure Act was introduced to shine a light on these issues. First, it would apply the Judicial Conference Code of Conduct, which applies to all other federaljudges, to Supreme Court Justices. Currently, the justices only look to this standard as "guidance". Second, the bill would require Supreme Court justices to publicly disclose their reasoning behind a recusal when they withdraw from a case and when they refuse to recuse themselves after a motion is made for them to do so. Lastly, it would require the Judicial Conference to develop a process to review decisions by justices who have refused to step aside from a case.
As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants". It is time that we apply that same ideal to the Supreme Court. Again, we urge you to schedule a hearing on HR 862, to help restore the public's faith in our judicial system and to guarantee the integrity of our country's highest court.
Sincerely,
Rep. Christopher Murphy (D-CT)
It's important to build on the momentum created by the recent New York Times expose that detailed the improper ties between Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and influential rightwing funder and activist Harlan Crow.1
Crow is a major contributor to conservative causes and a stalwart supporter of Clarence Thomas. In past years he gave Thomas' wife, Ginni Thomas, $500,000 to exploit the Citizens United decision and start a shadowy, Tea Party-related group called Liberty Central.2 He gave Thomas a Bible (estimated value $15,000) that once belonged to Frederick Douglass, and reportedly provided the Supreme Court Justice with access to his yacht and private jet.
As if that wasn't enough, the New York Times has revealed that Thomas solicited a multi-million dollar donation from Crow to benefit one of his own pet projects near his birthplace in a remote coastal community outside Savannah, Georgia.
We must not pass up this chance to hold Clarence Thomas accountable. Rep. Christopher Murphy's call for an investigation by the House Judiciary and his bill to add ethics rules with teeth to the Supreme Court is an important next step.
Becky Bond, Political Director
CREDO Action from Working Assets
CREDO Action from Working Assets
1. Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics, New York Times, June 19, 2011.
2. Justice Thomas's wife now lobbyist, Politico, February 4, 2011.
2. Justice Thomas's wife now lobbyist, Politico, February 4, 2011.
12 February 2011
Clarence Thomas: A supreme ethical conflict from CREDO & Reagan DOJ Official Slams Scalia’s Tea Party Gathering from THINKPROGRESS 10FEB11
TWO Supreme Court justices ethically challenged, and a threat to our judicial system and to the civil rights and liberties guaranteed by our constitution. clarence thomas must recuse himself from all deliberations on health care reform, the Affordable Care Act. Join Credo in calling for justice thomas to recuse himself by clicking the link. And check out the article from ThinkProgress on former Deputy Attorney General (reagan administration) Bruce Fein's opinion on justice antonin scalia's lack of judicial propriety with his relationship with the tea party and koch brothers......
A case challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform bill passed by Congress is headed to the Supreme Court, and Justice Clarence Thomas has a supreme ethical conflict. It's been widely reported that the Thomas family has financial ties to the conservative organizations leading the campaign to bring down our new health care law — the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Rep. Anthony Weiner and 73 other members of Congress have signed a letter detailing the appearance of ethical conflict and asking Justice Thomas to recuse himself from deliberations on the constitutionality of health care reform. We're asking you to sign a companion letter that Rep. Weiner — a champion of progressive issues — will deliver to the Supreme Court along with the letter signed by members of Congress. The letter to Justice Thomas reads: As an Associate Justice, you are entrusted with the responsibility to exercise the highest degree of discretion and impartiality when deciding a case. We join Rep. Anthony Weiner and other members of Congress in writing to note our surprise at recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act. Thomas failed to disclose that his wife Ginni Thomas received a total of $686,589 in compensation from the Heritage Foundation.1 Furthermore his wife is currently advertising herself as a lobbyist who has "experience and connections" to conservative groups who have an explicit agenda to overturn health care reform — by repeal in the Congress or overturning the law in the courts.2 Justice Thomas is no stranger to questions of ethics. Along with Justice Antonin Scalia he attended meetings organized by the secretive, Tea Party-funding billionaire Koch brothers. The Koch brothers have been key players in rewriting the political landscape after the Citizens United Supreme Court decision unleashed the floodgates of corporate money in federal politics.3 And Thomas' wife has received an undisclosed salary paid for by undisclosed donors as CEO of Liberty Central, a 501(c)(4) organization that was formed to take advantage of Citizens United rules and to play an active role in the 2010 elections. Unlike other members of the federal judiciary, Supreme Court Justices have no specific code of ethics to which they may be held accountable. But there is a clear appearance of a conflict of interest between his wife's clear financial stake in overturning the health care law and Justice Thomas' personal duty to exhibit the highest degree of discretion and impartiality. To protect the honor of the highest court in the land, Thomas must recuse himself from deliberations on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Sincerely, Becky Bond, Political Director CREDO Action from Working Assets |
 |
Reagan DOJ Official Slams Scalia’s Tea Party Gathering
Bruce Fein, Ronald Reagan’s former Associate Deputy Attorney General, published a letter in today’s New York Times castigating Justice Antonin Scalia for speaking to a backroom meeting organized by the House Tea Party Caucus:Justice Antonin Scalia galloped beyond the farthest boundaries of judicial propriety in secretly meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss the Constitution with Tea Party members of Congress saddled with a co-equal duty to assess the constitutionality of legislative action. If there are better ways to destroy public confidence in judicial impartiality, they do not readily come to mind. … Associate Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign for, among other things, secretly advising President Lyndon B. Johnson on race, urban unrest and the Vietnam War.Sadly, Scalia’s schmoozing with Tea Partiers is only one of many recent instances which call into question the impartiality of the federal bench. Scalia and his colleague Clarence Thomas both attended Koch-hosted fundraising sessions devoted to building and funding a corporate political movement. Likewise, Justice Alito is a profligate fundraiser for right-wing political causes. Justice Thomas’ wife may have found a way to get rich off of her husband’s judicial decisions. Three federal appellate judges sit on the board of an infamous “junkets for judges” organization that offers expense-paid trips to western resorts for judges who agree to attend a seminar on how to rule in favor of corporations. In the Fifth Circuit, which will hear appeals arising out of the BP oil disaster, ten of the court’s sixteen judges hold oil investments. The court’s chief judge, Edith Jones, holds as much as $330,000 in oil investments and frequently attends pro-corporate junkets. All of this raises serious questions about whether ordinary Americans can expect impartial justice, or whether justice is only available to those who can afford it.
21 October 2010
Justices Scalia And Thomas's Attendance At Koch Event Sparks Judicial Ethics Debate 20OKT10
I hate to admit it, but these are two justices of the supreme court I do not trust, and the only way to maintain their "honor" on the court is to provide on formation on their attendance and participation in this conference in the past.....total transparency.
Reports that two Supreme Court Justices have attended seminars sponsored by the energy giant and conservative bankroller Koch Industries has sparked a mild debate over judicial ethics.
On Tuesday evening, the New York Times reported that an upcoming meeting in Palm Springs of "a secretive network of Republican donors" that was being organized by Koch Industries, "the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes." Buried in the third to last graph was a note that previous guests at such meetings included Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the more conservative members of the bench.
It's not rare for a Justice to attend a seminar sponsored by a group with judicial or political interests. Members of the court, for instances, often speak at academic institutions or think tanks. Virtually all companies, meanwhile, are affected by the judicial branch. So long as Scalia and Thomas did not participate in overt partisan activities, there would be no apparent conflict of interest.
"There is nothing to prevent Supreme Court justices from hanging out with people who have political philosophies," said Steven Lubet, a professor of law at Northwestern University who teaches courses on Legal Ethics.
But the Koch event appears more political than, say, the Aspen Ideas festival. In its own invitation, it was described as a "twice a year" gathering "to review strategies for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it." In addition, it's not entirely clear what the two Justices did at the Koch event. A copy of the invitation that served as the basis for the Times's report was posted by the liberal blog Think Progress. It provided no additional clues. A call to the Supreme Court and an email to a Koch Industries spokesperson meanwhile were not immediately returned.
Faced with a lack of concrete information, and cognizant of Koch's fairly intense history of political involvement, legal ethicists are urging for more disclosure.
"This is certainly worth more reporting," said Stephen Gillers, a professor of law at New York University. "It is intriguing because the Koch brothers are so politically active and identify with a point of view. I know I would be curious to know exactly what forums the Justices went to. Obviously they could not go to a strategy session about how to elect more Republicans. On the other hand if it was a forum on the meaning of the First Amendment and it didn't involve strategy or fundraising a Justice could appear... It's fascinating and it merits more reporting."
What complicates the report, as Gillers notes, is that the Supreme Court, very recently, handed down a major decision on campaign finance law that Koch Industries quickly utilized. Citizens United overturned existing law by ruling that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money on federal elections. Koch has always been an active political and philanthropic giver. And its checks have been sent to Democrats as well as Republicans (though weighted more heavily to the latter). This cycle, however, the company has become one of the premier bankrollers of conservative causes, and earned the enmity of Democrats for doing so.
Suggestions that Justices Scalia and Thomas's support of Citizens United may have been affected by their time with Koch officials ignores the fact that nothing concrete is known about what meetings they attended and when. Even then, Lubet argues, it would be difficult to argue that there is "a troublesome nexus between the event and the decision." Scalia and Thomas have been opponents of restrictions on campaign finance likely well before they were guests at a Koch Industry seminar.
But their presence at the conference still raises questions of transparency and, for some, broader concerns about judicial independence.
"I think it is very important for judges to be part of the real world and to appear in public for educative purposes to help explain the arcane miseries of the court to the general public," said William G. Ross, a judicial ethics professor at Samford University's Cumberland School of Law. "That is very healthy and I don't think that judges should isolate themselves in a marble palace... However I am very troubled by the tendency of judges to make broader comments on public issues and to appear in public or private gatherings in which there are political overtones."
Reports that two Supreme Court Justices have attended seminars sponsored by the energy giant and conservative bankroller Koch Industries has sparked a mild debate over judicial ethics.
On Tuesday evening, the New York Times reported that an upcoming meeting in Palm Springs of "a secretive network of Republican donors" that was being organized by Koch Industries, "the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes." Buried in the third to last graph was a note that previous guests at such meetings included Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the more conservative members of the bench.
It's not rare for a Justice to attend a seminar sponsored by a group with judicial or political interests. Members of the court, for instances, often speak at academic institutions or think tanks. Virtually all companies, meanwhile, are affected by the judicial branch. So long as Scalia and Thomas did not participate in overt partisan activities, there would be no apparent conflict of interest.
"There is nothing to prevent Supreme Court justices from hanging out with people who have political philosophies," said Steven Lubet, a professor of law at Northwestern University who teaches courses on Legal Ethics.
But the Koch event appears more political than, say, the Aspen Ideas festival. In its own invitation, it was described as a "twice a year" gathering "to review strategies for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it." In addition, it's not entirely clear what the two Justices did at the Koch event. A copy of the invitation that served as the basis for the Times's report was posted by the liberal blog Think Progress. It provided no additional clues. A call to the Supreme Court and an email to a Koch Industries spokesperson meanwhile were not immediately returned.
Faced with a lack of concrete information, and cognizant of Koch's fairly intense history of political involvement, legal ethicists are urging for more disclosure.
"This is certainly worth more reporting," said Stephen Gillers, a professor of law at New York University. "It is intriguing because the Koch brothers are so politically active and identify with a point of view. I know I would be curious to know exactly what forums the Justices went to. Obviously they could not go to a strategy session about how to elect more Republicans. On the other hand if it was a forum on the meaning of the First Amendment and it didn't involve strategy or fundraising a Justice could appear... It's fascinating and it merits more reporting."
What complicates the report, as Gillers notes, is that the Supreme Court, very recently, handed down a major decision on campaign finance law that Koch Industries quickly utilized. Citizens United overturned existing law by ruling that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money on federal elections. Koch has always been an active political and philanthropic giver. And its checks have been sent to Democrats as well as Republicans (though weighted more heavily to the latter). This cycle, however, the company has become one of the premier bankrollers of conservative causes, and earned the enmity of Democrats for doing so.
Suggestions that Justices Scalia and Thomas's support of Citizens United may have been affected by their time with Koch officials ignores the fact that nothing concrete is known about what meetings they attended and when. Even then, Lubet argues, it would be difficult to argue that there is "a troublesome nexus between the event and the decision." Scalia and Thomas have been opponents of restrictions on campaign finance likely well before they were guests at a Koch Industry seminar.
But their presence at the conference still raises questions of transparency and, for some, broader concerns about judicial independence.
"I think it is very important for judges to be part of the real world and to appear in public for educative purposes to help explain the arcane miseries of the court to the general public," said William G. Ross, a judicial ethics professor at Samford University's Cumberland School of Law. "That is very healthy and I don't think that judges should isolate themselves in a marble palace... However I am very troubled by the tendency of judges to make broader comments on public issues and to appear in public or private gatherings in which there are political overtones."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)