Teaching gigs or luxe vacations? Justices’ ethics under scrutiny.

Sen. Dick Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the Supreme Court should follow the standards of other government branches. 

|
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Senate Judiciary Oversight Committee Chair Dick Durbin speaks during a hearing on June 13, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Mr. Durbin said that it's time for Supreme Court justices to bring their conduct in line with the standards of other branches of government.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Tuesday it was time for Supreme Court justices to bring their conduct in line with the ethical standards of other branches of government.

“If they just establish the basic standards of every other branch of government, it would give us much more confidence in their integrity,” said Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois. He made the comments in Vilnius, Lithuania, where he was attending the NATO summit as part of the U.S. delegation.

The Associated Press recently published a series of stories revealing questionable ethical practices by Supreme Court justices. They showed that Justice Sonia Sotomayor, aided by her staff, has advanced sales of her books through college visits over the past decade; that universities have used trips by justices as a lure for financial contributions by placing them in event rooms with wealthy donors, and that justices have taken expenses-paid “teaching” trips to attractive locations that are light on actual classroom instruction.

The AP series came on the heels of other recent reports that have raised ethical concerns about the activities of the justices, including several pieces by ProPublica that examined the relationship between Justice Clarence Thomas and a billionaire conservative businessman.

Lawmakers in Washington have announced a committee vote next week on legislation that would require the court to adopt an ethics code, known as the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act. The measure, which would be subject to a filibuster in the full Senate, is considered unlikely to pass. But it sends a signal of growing discontent about the court.

The nation’s highest court currently operates without an ethics code, instead being loosely guided by what Chief Justice John Roberts has referred to as a set of “ethics principles and practices.”

“The Supreme Court will no longer exist as a truly viable institution if it continues the failure to face the need for a code of ethics,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut on Tuesday.

But Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, another member of the Judiciary Committee, said he believes Congress should leave the ethics issue to the court and that the Democrats’ pursuit of ethics reform “is part of a longstanding assault against the court that the left feels is undermining a lot of things they’ve accomplished over the years by judicial action. To me, that’s the motivating factor.”

“I think it’s a co-equal branch of government we don’t have jurisdiction over. Secondly, I think this is part of a false narrative that the court is out of control and needs Congress to save it,” Senator Cornyn said.

Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis and an expert in legal ethics, said the latest reporting reveals the extent to which “ethics problems at the Supreme Court is an equal opportunity scandal.”

“It’s not just about Clarence Thomas and [Samuel] Alito,” Ms. Clark said, referring to earlier media reporting about the two conservative justices. “It’s an institutional rather than individual problem.”

This story was reported by The Associated Press.  

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Teaching gigs or luxe vacations? Justices’ ethics under scrutiny.
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2023/0713/Teaching-gigs-or-luxe-vacations-Justices-ethics-under-scrutiny
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe