President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court reform commission has had a tumultuous past month. A draft report’s warnings about court-packing upset liberals, while two conservatives resigned for reasons that remain unclear.
Ultimately, these issues symbolize the American people’s warped views of the “highest court in the land.” Too many Americans expect justices on their “team” to legislate from the bench, rather than simply interpret the law as the Constitution requires.
The answer to this polarization is not court-packing or confirming more pro-life judges. Instead, Congress should pass an ethics code for the Supreme Court.
A code of conduct for the justices would be fair, practical, and effective. Such a nonpartisan reform would not change the fundamental structure of the court. But it would constrain the justices from conducting partisan or unethical activities that undermine public faith in the court and the law. A code of conduct could have held Chief Justice John Roberts accountable when he did not recuse himself from a 2016 case involving a company in which he owned stock. And ethical guidelines could have penalized Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg after she told The New York Times in 2016, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.”
The reality is that the American people are losing faith in the Supreme Court as a neutral arbiter. In October, the court’s approval rating sunk to 40 percent, the lowest since Gallup began tracking this statistic in 2000. Over half of Americans disapprove of the court’s job performance. But an ethics code could rebuild public faith in the judiciary at this critical time.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Yes. And Justices on both sides need to tone down the rhetoric both in their public speeches and their opinions.
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree that so called conservative judges are guilty of this type of overheated rhetoric. If you look, you will will see its the libs.
ReplyDeleteWhat we need to do is stop pretending that judges are completely neutral and objective--as humans, that's impossible. And while we're at it, let's talk about how this myth cloaks explicit and implicit biases that are carried out through the gavel.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised at the lack of coverage of Justice Thomas and his political rulings. He is the only Justice to rule that a president is not immune from civil litigation when the president was a democrat (9-0 btw). He then ruled last year that a President could not be criminally prosecuted when a Republican was in the White House. Nothing but politics explains this inconsistency. His wife funded buses to the capital on 1/6 yet there are no media stories that explain this. If Ginsburg's husband funded buses to over throw fair elections of George Bush, it would be a constant story and many people asking her to step down or not take cases about the presidency. There is hypocrisy on the left and it gets covered but when its on the right, it never gets covered.
ReplyDelete