Imposing a code of ethics on the justices who serve on the Supreme Court is a political idea that — like much of the rest of American politics — has split proponents and opponents down the middle.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. says neither Congress nor the White House is empowered to dictate conditions to the high court — and that any attempt to do so upsets the balance between the three coequal branches of government.
The debate has come roaring to the forefront after a series of articles over the last year accusing some GOP-appointed justices of taking trips sponsored by wealthy individuals who may have business before the high court. “This is part of a clear strategic and coordinated and calculated attempt to create the appearance of unethical behavior where there is not any and specifically because of rulings that upset particular members of Congress,” she said.
But Carolyn Shapiro, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law and former clerk to retired Justice Stephen G. Breyer, said Congress has regulated the Supreme Court before, including its jurisdiction, and it makes sense that Capitol Hill can also impose ethics standards. The tuition total could have cost more than $150,000, according to ProPublica. Justice Thomas did not disclose the payments in his financial disclosure forms, and the news outlet suggested that runs afoul of ethical standards required of federal judges on lower courts.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has said the court generally follows the code of ethics that is binding on lower courts. Instead, he submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee with a statement of ethics principles and practices the court follows. It was signed by all nine current members.
Australia Latest News, Australia Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Supreme Court could win friends by sacking $6B opioid settlementFrom other readers: Gun violence and children; how to keep Trump off the ballot.
Read more »
Indiana Supreme Court denies rehearing on abortion restrictions clearing way for law to take effectIn their response to the denial for a rehearing, the Supreme Court ruled as an order with separate opinions, a rehearing is unnecessary.
Read more »
The Supreme Court’s Next Big Tax Case Demands Clarence Thomas’ RecusalThis coming term, the Supreme Court will hear United States v. Moore, a case that could determine the constitutionality of a hypothetical wealth tax.
Read more »
Indiana Supreme Court denies ACLU appeal on abortion banThe Indiana Supreme Court denied the American Civil Liberties Union's request for an appeal on the state's near-total abortion ban on Monday, allowing the strict abortion ban to take effect immediately in the Hoosier State.
Read more »
Indiana's near-total abortion ban set to take effect as state Supreme Court denies rehearingIndiana’s near-total abortion ban is set to take effect within days after the Indiana Supreme Court denied a rehearing in the case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.
Read more »