Friday, June 23, 2023

Corruption at SCOTUS


And they both saw Scalia skate.
Late Tuesday, ProPublica, the same nonprofit news organization that broke the story about Justice Clarence Thomas accepting stuff he shouldn’t have from a billionaire he became friends with only after he became a Supreme Court justice, put the spotlight on Justice Samuel Alito. If you were shocked by the Thomas story, you’ll be outraged by the report on Alito.

[...]

Sam Alito, like the other associate justices on the Supreme Court, makes $285,400 a year. That would be a gracious plenty for most people to live and vacation on. But Justice Alito took a little assist [from GOP megadonor Paul Singer to] a luxury fishing lodge in Alaska that cost about $1,000 per day. Singer, a hedge fund billionaire, has had cases in front of the Supreme Court and been involved in filing amicus briefs in the years since 2008, when this photo was taken.

[...]

Singer gave Alito a lift to Alaska on a private jet that, ProPublica reports, could have cost more than $100,000 each way if Alito had paid for the charter himself. But he didn’t. Instead, he accepted the favor and later participated in deciding the cases. Alito and Singer do not appear to have known each other before the trip.

[...]

wJustice Alito has never recused.

  Joyce Vance
And, in fact, I believe Alito said Singer was never a named party to anything before the court.
Alito didn’t report the trip as a gift on his annual financial disclosures, one of the only ethics requirements imposed on Supreme Court justices, who are largely left to decide what’s ethical and what isn’t on their own, with no accountability.

[...]

[Singer] has chaired the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, since 2008 and has given millions of dollars to support its work. Here’s where it gets interesting: The institute files amicus briefs with the Court regularly, including 15 this term, on issues that matter to its conservative agenda.

[...]

Justice Alito also accepted a complimentary stay at the lodge from its owner, Robin Arkley II. Arkley is a wealthy businessman in his own right, the owner of a mortgage company. Multiple sources confirmed to ProPublica that Alito was Arkley’s guest at the lodge, and that he didn’t pay for anything during his stay.

Leonard Leo, the founder of the conservative Federalist Society, organized the trip and arranged for Alito’s flight on Singer’s plane. There was a web of interconnection among the men: Leo had recently played a role in Alito’s confirmation, by a 58–42 vote, in January 2006; both Singer and Arkley were contributors to Leo’s political groups.
Leonard Leo seems to be in all of these stories about the court.
In a statement, Leonard Leo declined to comment on the trip but said he “would never presume to tell” Alito and Justice Antonin Scalia, whose trips he’d also been involved in, “what to do.” And isn’t that the whole point? He didn’t have to.

[...]

Alito’s claims [...] include:

He was unaware of Singer’s connection to cases where his companies came before the court.

He recalled speaking to Singer on “no more than a handful of occasions.” Also, he says they never discussed Singer’s business or issues before the court.

He also suggests the trip was okay because the seat on the flight “would have otherwise been vacant.”

[...]

My friend and colleague Barb McQuade put it best: “Pro tip: If you’re a Supreme Court justice, don’t take free trips, even when the seat on the billionaire’s private plane would ‘otherwise go unoccupied.’ Normal people don’t get free fishing trips to Alaska. It is not your winning personality that makes you different.”

[...]

Alito’s defense comes down to hard-to-believe disclaimers about the relationship (pretty sure you’d remember someone who took you on this splendid trip and know where they worked), and also the insinuation that he never ruled in favor of the friend who provided him with “personal hospitality”—the dodge justices use when they don’t want to report trips. And that begs the real question: Why not just include the gifts in your financial disclosures? If there’s nothing wrong with taking the trip, there should be nothing wrong with disclosing who paid for it.

[...]

Alito also deemed his failure to report acceptable because the justices “commonly interpreted” the disclosure rules in a way that meant they didn’t have to include payment for “accommodations and transportation for social events.” I guess that means all of the Biden-appointed judges are free to fly to Rome for a fancy trip on someone else’s nickel. Oh wait, no. That was Alito, too, last summer. Not sure whether he reported that one, but it was to give a keynote address to a group put together by Yale Law School at an event on religious liberty, so at least it wasn’t personal pleasure travel. As Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Stern noted at the time, “For starters, there is the breathtaking conflict of interest at work when a justice gives faith-based speeches at faith-based events sponsored by faith-based parties who file briefs before the court.” No word on why the conference had to be held in Rome.

[...]

The justices are so removed that they are unaware, or perhaps simply don’t care, that it damages not only their individual reputations but the reputation of the court and public confidence in the rule of law. It is a sick irony that the people who tell others how to resolve their most difficult disputes fail to see how serious their own issues have become. They have done nothing to rectify past errors, take responsibility for them, and move forward on a better path.

[...]

ProPublica says Scalia did not report the one pictured above, which was to Alaska. “Scalia’s travels briefly drew scrutiny in 2016 after he died while staying at the hunting ranch of a Texas businessman. Scalia had a pattern of disclosing trips to deliver lectures while not mentioning hunting excursions he took to nearby locales hosted by local attorneys and businessmen, according to a research paper published after his death.” There seems to be a pattern here.
Well, this story doesn't make me any more outraged than the stories about Thomas, but it's a good match.

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

No comments: