Thomas's ongoing ethics problem, and Chris Murphy's potential solution

U.S. Supreme Court, Wikimedia Commons

The New York Times provided a great journalistic service in its detailed report of the friendship between Justice Clarence Thomas and Texas real estate magnate and conservative-cause funder Harlan Crow. Particularly the discussion of Crow's funding of the conservative cause of Thomas's wife, Ginny, to the tune of $500,000.

Think Progress has done great follow up, particularly with Ian Millhiser's story on the American Enterprise Institute and its perfect record in litigation before Thomas. Crow was on the board of the AEI when it gave Thomas a $15,000 gift, and in at least three cases in which the AEI filed briefs in Supreme Court cases, Thomas ruled with the AEI.

Turns out it's not just AEI, and Millhiser is once again on the case. Turns out Crow has also served on the board of the Center for Community Interest, another right-wing outfit.

Westlaw?s database of Supreme Court briefs reveals eight briefs filed by CCI in eight different Supreme Court cases, and Justice Thomas voted for CCI?s preferred outcome in every single one of these cases:

• City of Chicago v. Morales: The lower court struck down a law ?making it illegal for members of criminal gangs to loiter and fail to obey an order to disperse.? CCI asked the Court to reverse that decision, and Justice Thomas wrote a dissent saying that he would reverse.
• Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott: The lower court struck down a parole board?s warrantless search of a parolee?s residence. CCI asked the Court to reverse that decision, and Justice Thomas wrote the 5-4 decision reversing.
• Dickerson v. U.S.: The lower court upheld a statute cutting at the core of accused defendant?s Miranda rights. CCI asked the Court to affirm this decision. Justice Thomas joined a dissent which would have affirmed.
• U.S. v. Knights: The lower court struck down the warrantless search of a probationer?s residence. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined a decision reversing.
• U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development v. Rucker: The lower court ruled in favor of public housing tenants who were evicted because their resident family members or caregivers violated drug laws. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined a decision reversing.
• Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe: The lower court struck down a law requiring public disclosure of registered sex offenders. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined a decision reversing.
• U.S. v. American Library Ass?n, Inc.: The lower court struck down a federal law requiring many public libraries to use filtering software that prevents web browsers from showing some pornographic material. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined a plurality opinion reversing.
• Devenpeck v. Alford: The lower court held an arrest unconstitutional. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined an opinion reversing.

As Millhiser says, "there is no direct evidence that Crow lavished gifts on Thomas in order to switch his vote in any of these cases." Nonetheless, Thomas's failure to recuse himself from the cases in which Crow had an interest, in light of the men's friendship and the gifts and contributions, calls Thomas's integrity into question. It calls the integrity of the SCOTUS into question in turn. It's not just Thomas who's pushed ethical boundaries. One of the primary problems for the institution in these cases is that the Judicial Conference Code of Conduct that all other federal judges must abide by doesn't apply to Supreme Court Justices.

Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT) has a partial solution to this problem, the Supreme Court Transparency and Disclosure Act which would end the Court's exemption from judicial ethics laws. Once again, Millhiser has the story, along with a letter from Murphy to his colleagues, asking the House Judiciary Committee?s leadership to hold a hearing on his bill. Here's an excerpt:

The Supreme Court must be a neutral arbiter that acts without bias or prejudice. We the people created our Constitution to ?establish justice,? and the promise that Supreme Court justices abide by the rule of law and not political influence or ideology is at the foundation of who we are as a country.

This bedrock principle is important with the prospect that the Supreme Court will eventually rule on the constitutionality of legislation debated by this Congress, like the Affordable Care Act. Whatever the justices decide, the legitimacy of their decisions depend on whether the American people believe them to be impartial and above any particular political or financial interests.

The SCOTUS should be above reproach, and Justices should conduct themselves in a way that reflects the integrity and the importance the highest court of the land should hold. Unfortunately, Justices like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have made Murphy's legislation necessary.

Rep. Murphy has a petition drive in place, where you can show your support for his legislation, both in getting more House cosponsors and in securing companion legislation in the Senate. If the blatant disregard for even the appearance of judicial propriety on the part of Scalia, Alito, and Thomas bothers you, go sign the petition, and show your support for an ethical judiciary.

Source: http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/IJ4-MpXZzi4/-Thomass-ongoing-ethics-problem,-and-Chris-Murphys-potential-solution

usa political news bbc politics news politic crack processor srilanka political news