demand justice
Democrats, Progressive Groups to Demand Probe of Alito Over Insurrection Flags
"This is a justice who is going to weigh in on cases that are about our democracy, about the former president's participation in an insurrection," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
A pair of House Democrats and a coalition of progressive advocacy groups on Wednesday will hold a press conference on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court demanding a Senate probe into right-wing Justice Samuel Alito, who is under fire after reporting revealed that flags associated with the January 6, 2021 insurrection were displayed at two of the judge's homes in recent years.
Reps. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, will join the leaders of Stand Up America, MoveOn, Demand Justice, and other advocacy groups at the Wednesday press conference, which is scheduled to begin at 9:00 am ET.
"Participants will call on Senate leadership to launch a full and thorough investigation into Justice Alito's actions as well as push forward essential legislation to reform the Supreme Court," organizers said in a press advisory.
Johnson, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced legislation last year that would establish 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices. Jayapal has also been a vocal supporter of Supreme Court ethics reforms.
The press conference will come days after Alito rejected calls to recuse from pending cases related to former President Donald Trump and the January 6 insurrection after The New York Timesreported that the justice and his wife flew an upside-down American flag and the "Appeal to Heaven" flag at their homes in Virginia and New Jersey.
Both flags were "carried by rioters at the Capitol on January 6, 2021," the Times noted.
"To say that it has no bearing that his wife was flying not just one but two flags is really disturbing."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said following publication of the Times stories that his panel "has been conducting a thorough investigation into years of ethical lapses by some justices on the Supreme Court—and the committee has been reviewing the latest reporting on Justice Alito as part of this ongoing investigation."
"Flying the American flag upside down at his home is a signal of defiance, which raises reasonable questions about bias and fairness in cases pending before the court," Durbin added.
In letters to members of Congress last week, Alito blamed his wife for flying the two flags and claimed that "a reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases would conclude that this event does not meet the applicable standard for recusal."
Jayapal, one of the Democratic lawmakers who demanded Alito's recusal, called the justice's response to the request "outrageous" and said he "had an obligation" to step away from cases involving Trump and the 2021 Capitol attack.
"This is a justice who is going to weigh in on cases that are about our democracy, about the former president's participation in an insurrection," Jayapal said in a CNN appearance last week. "To say that it has no bearing that his wife was flying not just one but two flags is really disturbing."
GOP Leaders Push Judiciary to Ignore Policy Designed to End 'Judge Shopping'
"Look who just came out and said it: We're against the fair and impartial administration of justice," said one civil rights attorney.
Republican lawmakers on Thursday signaled they want to stop judges from following a new judicial policy unveiled this week that's aimed at curbing what one journalist called "one of the most outrageous aspects of the American legal system."
In a letter to the chief justices of U.S. district courts across the country on a new rule regarding the practice of "judge shopping," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) joined Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) in advising the judges that "Judicial Conference policy is not legislation."
The policy in question, approved by the Judicial Conference on Tuesday, would prevent plaintiffs from filing lawsuits that seek to block state or federal actions in single-judge divisions—a practice that right-wing litigants have been criticized for using in order to secure favorable rulings. Instead, the court system would randomly assign lawsuits to any judge throughout the district where they were filed.
The practice of judge shopping, wrote Ian Millhiser at Vox on Tuesday, "turned Matthew Kacsmaryk, an obscure advocate on the Christian right appointed by former President Donald Trump to the Northern District of Texas, into one of the most powerful government officials in the entire country" in recent years, due to the judge's status as the only federal trial judge based in Amarillo, Texas.
Attorneys representing right-wing causes have filed numerous lawsuits in Kacsmaryk's court, including one in which a parent sued the government over Title X funding of family planning clinics and a case challenging federal approval of mifepristone, which is used in medication abortion.
Senate Democrats last year wrote to the Judicial Conference and called on the body to "address this problem and restore fairness to our federal judiciary."
In an attempt to ensure the judicial system continues supporting judge shopping, the Republican leaders told chief justices: "It is your job to manage the caseload of your court according to the dictates of local circumstances and convention. We therefore hope and expect that you will continue to do what is in the interest of justice for litigants in your jurisdiction without regard to partisan battles in Washington, D.C."
The letter amounted to an admission that the GOP is "against the fair and impartial administration of justice," said civil rights attorney Leslie Proll.
At The American Prospect, Ryan Cooper wrote Friday that judge shopping is "offensive" to "basic principles of the rule of law and democratic values."
"Government is supposed to be based on the consent of the governed, and the principal focus of the judiciary should be ensuring the law is applied in a consistent and coherent fashion rather than acting as an unelected legislature," wrote Cooper. "That holds double when it comes to any one of 677 district court judges, who have no business whatsoever dictating terms to the people as a whole. But with judge shopping, a random handful of extremists can file a lawsuit based on crackpot nonsense or actual lies, present their case to a carefully chosen friendly judge who will automatically rule in their favor, and seize control of some national policy."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, toldBloomberg Law Thursday that the Judicial Conference had acted "to curb the ability of MAGA extremists to handpick their preferred Trump-appointed judge."
"America has seen what happens when MAGA Republicans use the courts to advance their unpopular agenda because they cannot prevail in the court of public opinion—just look to recent mifepristone cases in Texas. Preventing this abuse of the system will help restore the public's trust in our court system and strengthen our democracy."
Judicial advocacy group Demand Justice said the reform introduced by the Judicial Conference is "long overdue."
"We will need oversight and reform from Congress to restore legitimacy and balance to our courts," said the group.
Democratic senators including Sens. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Ron Wyden of Oregon have proposed legislation to prevent judge shopping. The Republicans noted in their letter Thursday that Congress rejected a bill in 1999 that would have required cases to be randomly assigned.
Cooper called the Judicial Conference's announcement "a highly welcome reform that should reduce the amount of judicial overreach in this country," but also "an indicator of just how broken the other two branches of government have become, particularly Congress."
“Ultimately, we can't expect the judiciary to truly regulate itself," wrote Cooper. "As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, 'Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.' When feral judges arrogate the powers of Congress to themselves, the legislature is supposed to slap them down. Until it does, the problem of judicial tyranny will remain."
Most US Voters Want Stricter Supreme Court Ethics Code
"Americans can see through the court's failed attempt at a code of conduct," said one group. "It's time for Congress to take action and pass actual ethics reform."
Nearly three-quarters of U.S. voters want federal lawmakers to pass a stricter ethics policy for the nation's Supreme Court, according to polling results released Tuesday by the progressive advocacy group Demand Justice.
The poll was conducted by YouGov after the Supreme Court announced last week that it had formally adopted a new code of conduct following months of outrage over reporting on relationships between right-wing justices and billionaires. YouGov explained to those surveyed that justices have been criticized for failing to disclose taking gifts and travel from political donors.
YouGov also told voters that supporters of a stricter ethics code say the newly adopted policy "has no way to actually enforce the rules" and believe "Congress should continue to investigate corruption allegations," while opponents of congressional action believe members of the court should be "allowed to determine their own rules without interference" and trusted to enforce them.
Across party lines, 74% of voters agreed that Congress should approve a stricter ethics code and continue to probe "the ties between justices and political megadonors," including 90% of Democrats, 70% of Independents, and 57% of Republicans.
In response to the findings, End Citizens United said that "Americans can see through the court's failed attempt at a code of conduct. It's time for Congress to take action and pass actual ethics reform."
As Common Dreams reported when the new code was announced last week, critics have condemned it as a "toothless PR stunt" intended to curb media coverage of potential corruption and "halt momentum for transparency and real reform."
Amid a wave of reporting about Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito's connections to billionaire megadonors and Leonard Leo—who leads the Federalist Society, a primary force in pushing U.S. courts to the right—Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act in July.
However, the bill is unlikely to win approval from the full Senate or GOP-controlled House of Representatives. Still, the Senate panel—chaired by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)—is expected to continue its probe, possibly with subpoenas targeting Leo and Thomas benefactor Harlan Crow.
Demand Justice was among over a dozen groups that last week called on the committee to issue subpoenas, arguing that "we must learn the full scope of these hidden efforts to improperly influence the Supreme Court and the extent of Justices Thomas' and Alito's ethical wrongdoings."