SCOTUS under pressure

Oh, snap!

“Today’s New York Times report is another black mark on the Supreme Court’s increasingly marred ethical record, and we intend to get to the bottom of these serious allegations. It’s clear that one of the nation’s most important institutions – an institution that claims to be above politics – has been quietly captured by far-right political groups and secretive dark money influence. The Court needs to get its house in order and adopt a binding code of ethics, just as the lower courts have, and bring its travel and gift disclosure rules in line with the other branches of government. When the American people get their day in court, they must be able to trust that the decision handed down is justly rooted in law and fact – not the wishes of right-wing political groups and megadonors who purchased access to wine and dine the justices.”

  Sheldon Whitehouse.gov

On July 8, 2022, Politico reported that Rob Schenck, the former leader of the conservative religious group Faith and Action, admitted to leading a private judicial lobbying campaign over the course of two decades. Critically, this campaign may have continued even as Faith and Action’s successor organization, Faith and Liberty, frequently appeared before the Court as a litigant and amicus curiae.

[...]

As part of this Operation, Faith and Action reportedly “arranged . . . for about 20 couples to fly to Washington to visit with and entertain” Justices Thomas, Alito, and Scalia.8 One couple, Gayle Wright and her late husband Don, had an outsized role in “Operation Higher Court.” The Wrights allegedly “financed numerous expensive dinners with [Justices] Thomas, Alito, Scalia and their wives at Washington, D.C., hotspots.” [...] Earlier this month, Rolling Stone revealed that leaders of Faith and Action’s successor organization, Faith and Liberty, continue to enjoy private, previously undisclosed access to certain justices; according to Faith and Liberty’s current vice president, the organization’s leaders frequently pray with some of the justices in their chambers.

[...]

Litigants and the American public deserve to know when and how private groups are working to sway litigation by providing Supreme Court justices with lavish dinners or hunting trips.

[...]

Private, undisclosed lobbying by motivated organizations [...] has no place in our judiciary. Such lobbying should be expressly forbidden by a formal Supreme Court ethics code—as it appears to be under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

[...]

To that end, we urge the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct without delay, and the entire federal judiciary to move quickly to update its financial disclosure requirements to match those of Congress and the executive branch.

In the meantime, we respectfully request that you provide responses to the following questions regarding the justices’ knowledge of “Operation Higher Court.”

Given the severity of our concerns, we ask that you respond to our requests on or before Wednesday, September 21.

  Letter.pdf

Seems like a coordinated agreement to hide that information, does it not?

Impeach Alito and Thomas.  

Yes, I know, there isn't time before the Republicans take over the House.  And that sucks.

That letter must have put Roberts' knickers in a twist. And had Alito and Thomas seething and scrambling to hire their own personal attorneys.

And what was the Court's response on November 7? Essentially, fuck off.

In a response to the Chairmen earlier this month, a legal counsel for the Court did not substantively address their questions and made no mention of Faith and Action. That letter is available here. According to today’s story, Chief Justice Roberts received a letter in July stating that Faith and Action had received inappropriate advanced notice of the verdict in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, but the Court did not acknowledge that information in its November response to Whitehouse and Johnson.

Earlier this year, Whitehouse and Johnson introduced the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act to enact stronger recusal standards, require the Court to adopt a binding code of conduct, and mandate that the Supreme Court adopt more robust rules governing disclosure of gifts and travel paid for by outside parties. The bill would also require disclosure of the identity of funders of amicus briefs, and block amicus filers from making gifts or providing travel to court of appeals judges or Supreme Court justices.

  Sheldon Whitehouse.gov

When pigs fly.

Impeach Alito and Thomas.  

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

They're coming for you, chief. Things have spun out of your control. Among other things Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is eager to hear a little bit more about:

[...]

It may assist the resolution of these issues if the Court were to designate an individual knowledgeable about them to provide testimony to us about the existence or not, and the nature if they exist, of any procedures that guide inquiry, investigation and determination of factual issues related to ethics or reporting questions raised about justices’ conduct.

That last part is the sound of the hunter's horn. If Roberts won't come to them, they'll settle for an ambassador, as long as they're satisfied the ambassador is empowered to deal. The truly ironic thing is that, in any fight between the court and the Congress, Roberts' staunchest institutionalist allies may wind up being Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. They truly respect the institution the way he allegedly did once. They recuse themselves from cases in which their participation might be improper (Jackson was barely settled in her chair when she had to take herself out of judging a case about Harvard's admissions policy because of her long connection to that university). It's obvious that Roberts can't rely on Alito or Thomas, who'd sell him cheap to Malay pirates; they wouldn't be protecting the court, they'd be protecting themselves. Kavanaugh is far from a rock in that regard, too. Gorsuch might be a wild card on whom Roberts could lean. Barrett would jump at shadows.

Roberts has to know that his entire legacy as chief justice is on the line right now. Smart people once told me that mattered to him.

  Charlie Pierce

UPDATE 11/29:  SCOTUS responds to Whitehouse and Johnson: Nothing to see here.  "Social hospitality" is allowed.

UPDATE:  Whitehouse and Johnson respond:

“Through legal counsel, the Supreme Court reiterated Justice Alito’s denials but did not substantively answer any of our questions. The Court’s letter is an embodiment of the problems at the Court around ethics issues. Unlike all other federal courts, there is no formal process for complaints; it took a Senator’s and a Congressman’s repeated letters to galvanize a response. Unlike all other federal courts, there is no formal process for fact-finding inquiry. The assertions of fact by the Court’s lawyer emerge from darkness, and overlook important facts like all the contemporaneous evidence that Mr. Schenck in fact knew both the outcome and author in advance and acted at that time on that knowledge. Unlike all other federal courts, there is no independence — no formal process of independent review. That absence of independence violates the ancient maxim, nemo judex in sua causa: no one should judge their own cause. These multiple failures of orderly process are peculiar, coming from the highest Court in the land. Procedure is the bone structure of justice,” Whitehouse and Johnson said in response to the new letter.

  Sheldon Whitehouse.gov