SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
john roberts
Who Will Check the Supreme Court That Should Be Checking Trump?
The nine justices of the nation's highest court are powerful government officials with a duty to stand up against abuse and for the rule of law. They claim they are independent. Will they act?
Dec 05, 2024
FBI director nominee-in-waiting Kash Patel writes children’s books in which his character, a wizard, vows to protect “King Donald.” (Patel also peddled pills to reverse the Covid-19 vaccine and produced a song recorded by imprisoned January 6 insurrectionists called “Justice for All.”) Ominous credentials to head the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency, one with a history of abuse.
We’ve been vocal about what’s gone wrong at the Supreme Court. It has been captured by a faction of a faction. But if we’ve ever needed an independent judiciary, we need it now. If guardrails crumble and the powerful quail before Donald Trump, the high court may be one of the last — indeed, at times, the only — protectors of the Constitution.
All of which makes the latest revelations about the Court so dismaying — the inside story of how the justices adopted an ethics code that is more loophole than law.
In the past two years, ProPublica and other news outlets have revealed startling misconduct. Justice Clarence Thomas for years had his lifestyle secretly subsidized by billionaire Harlan Crow. The billionaire provided lavish vacations, paid for the education of Thomas’s surrogate son, and even bought and renovated the justice’s mother’s house (with her living in it). If this happened with state legislators in Albany or Sacramento, we’d call it corruption. Justice Samuel Alito, too, took luxury travel from yet another billionaire, also without disclosing it. Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society played matchmaker between the judges and the billionaires. ProPublica won the Pulitzer Prize for its exposés.
Public outcry was loud enough that the Court last year felt compelled to issue a first-ever code of conduct. The justices explained that this was only to clear up a “misunderstanding” by citizens. Instead of being the only judges with no ethics code, they now had the weakest.
Now The New York Times has revealed the fevered deliberations that produced this result. It reads like the doings of sneaky pols on House of Cards. Justices sent each other memos in sealed envelopes because they were so fearful of leaks. Thomas and Alito “wrote off the Court’s critics as politically motivated and unappeasable,” write Jodi Kantor and Abbie VanSickle. The liberal justices pushed for a strong code with an enforcement mechanism, such as a panel of retired judges, to no avail.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, the newspaper reported, was most vocal in opposition and judicial self-regard. “The justices’ strength was their independence, he said, and he vowed to have no part in diminishing it,” the article reports. Gorsuch wrote a long memo of complaint as the rules were being drafted.
The result was a tepid code that did little to boost public confidence. It violates a core principle: Nobody is so wise that they should be the judge in their own case. The justices decide on their own when they must “recuse,” or refrain from hearing a case. Nor must they explain why they stepped back, though some justices have begun to do that. Most important, there is no mechanism for enforcement.
So the Court has served up mush. But the story need not end there. Congress has set rules for the federal courts throughout history, as envisioned by the Constitution. Samuel Alito has waxed indignant about this. “I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it. No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period,” he told The Wall Street Journal. Justice Elena Kagan felt compelled to respond publicly. “It just can’t be that the Court is the only institution that somehow is not subject to checks and balances from anybody else,” she said. “We’re not imperial.”
This again shows why the Court needs fundamental reform. An 18-year term limit for justices would make the Court much more accountable. It accords with a fundamental American precept: Nobody should hold too much power for too long. It’s also widely popular. The most recent Fox News poll on the issue showed that 78 percent of respondents backed term limits — in other words, strong majorities of Republicans and independents as well as Democrats.
In recent years, congressional Republicans have been hostile to Supreme Court reform. With Congress in Republican hands for the next two years at least, there’s an opportunity to deepen support among conservatives and liberals, legal scholars, bar leaders, and others. It’s an idea whose time has come.
We need a strong, independent, principled Supreme Court. The ruling last summer granting vast criminal immunity empowers the president to law-break with impunity. Major rulings are due on vital issues — including the oral arguments today on state laws banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. Civil liberties violations likely to accompany mass deportation of noncitizens will surely reach the justices. This term will test whether this is a principled Court or, as seems increasingly likely, a MAGA Court.
No, Kash Patel is not a wizard. The justices wear robes, but they aren’t either. They are powerful government officials with a duty to stand up against abuse and for the rule of law. They claim they are independent. Will they act? The backstage saga of their ethics code doesn’t augur well.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Revelations Show Just How Corrupt the Supreme Court Really Is
Call me naïve. At the beginning of this year, I felt confident in asserting that the court was a conservative court, a Federalist Society court, even a Republican court—but not a MAGA court.
Sep 18, 2024
Last spring, Justice Samuel Alito had drafted an opinion dropping federal charges against many of the January 6 insurrectionists who violently stormed the Capitol. The ruling in Fischer v. United States had not yet been released. Then The New York Times published a startling story: Alito himself had flown the flag of insurrection at his home. (He briefly blamed it on his wife: “She is fond of flying flags.”) Days later, it was reported that he had flown such flags at his vacation home as well.
Awkward! Grounds for recusal? Time to rethink the ruling? Nah. Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts quietly took Alito’s embarrassing name off the opinion and slipped his own name onto it instead.
That is just one of the gobsmacking revelations from a story by Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak that appeared in The New York Times last weekend. The lurid news of the day quickly overwhelmed it—the gunman arrested outside Donald Trump’s golf course, the continued smear campaign by former President Trump and Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) against the Haitian immigrant community in a small city in Ohio, and more.
Throughout American history, overreach by the Supreme Court has provoked a response.
But we must not let these revelations fade from view. They paint a damning and indelible picture of how John Roberts, for all his vaunted “institutionalism” and piety about calling “balls and strikes,” steered the court to shield Trump from accountability for his misdeeds.
Call me naïve. At the beginning of this year, I thought I had few illusions about the court. I had just published a harshly critical book, The Supermajority. But I felt confident in asserting that the court was a conservative court, a Federalist Society court, even a Republican court—but not a MAGA court. It had not yet shown an appetite for excusing Trump from the reach of the law.
So I, along with most legal observers, assumed that the justices would let Trump’s trial proceed. I thought there was a good chance it would be unanimous, that Roberts would work behind the scenes to ensure that the court spoke with one voice on major issues of presidential power and constitutional law. That’s what other chief justices did, most notably Warren Burger in United States v. Nixon, the Watergate tapes case and the closest analogue to the Trump trial ruling.
After all, we all thought, Trump v. United States was legally easy. Indeed, the possibility of criminal charges was the stated reason why Republican senators did not vote to convict him of the January 6 charges in Trump’s second impeachment trial.
Many of us, too, sensed there was a deal afoot—a unanimous ruling that Trump could not be thrown off the ballot by one state under the 14th Amendment and a principled ruling on the criminal trial.
Behind the velvet curtain of the court, though, there was no deal. Roberts wrote a memo in February—before the court had even announced that it would hear Trump’s appeal—declaring that the court would give the former president a huge win. “I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently” from the appeals court, he wrote. As Kantor and Liptak summarized, “In other words: grant Mr. Trump greater protection from prosecution.”
They detailed myriad other ways that Roberts steered rulings Trump’s way. He froze out Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The ruling was sloppy and immunized vast areas of potential presidential wrongdoing. The Times noted that NYU Law professor Trevor Morrison had discovered that Roberts selectively edited a quote from a key earlier ruling to help Trump.
The resulting ruling tells future presidents that they can break the law, plainly and flagrantly. As long as they conspire with other government officials, it will be effectively immunized. (Order your White House counsel to pay hush money, as Richard Nixon did, not your campaign manager, and you’ll be off the hook.)
The opinion has widely and correctly been scorned as one of the worst in American history—a rip in the constitutional fabric. The Times’ tick-tock makes clear that this was not a baffling anomaly. Rather, it is the biggest, most visible, and perhaps most consequential in a series of actions taken by a corrupted court. It follows Citizens United, Shelby County, and other rulings that systematically undid key democratic protections.
Throughout American history, overreach by the Supreme Court has provoked a response. Dred Scott did in the 1850s—it helped lead to a civil war. Reactionary rulings such as Lochner did in the early 20th century. Trump v. United States should join with the Dobbs abortion rights ruling to spur a similar backlash today.
We’ve argued for an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices, because nobody should have too much public power for too long. And we’ve urged a binding code of ethics, which would have forced Justices Alito and Clarence Thomas to step out of these key cases. These reforms are widely popular. Most recently, a Fox News poll this summer found that 78% support term limits.
The court is a broken institution. It’s time to fix it. The latest revelations remind us that otherwise, the fix is in.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Supreme Court Justices Should Be Deadly Ashamed for What They Have Done to Homeless People
Let me tell you this: No one wakes up one morning and chooses to be homeless. No one says to themselves, “How fun would it be for my kids and my family to live in a tent without food, water, school, or transportation?”
Aug 11, 2024
I listened with profound sadness to the recent Supreme Court decision Grants Pass v. Johnson, which opens the door for people to be arrested simply for lacking shelter. This decision makes it legal for local governments to target, fine, and even incarcerate people who fall asleep in public areas, regardless of whether there’s safe, accessible shelter available.
Where’s the compassion? Where’s the justice?
I know what it’s like to be without a place to call home. In the years before the pandemic, my husband and I were working hard to buy a house for our children and the animals we rescued. I’d overcome an opioid addiction. We had a small business and were starting to achieve our dreams.
But when the pandemic hit, we lost our business, and our debts quickly mounted. We’d nearly completed the purchase of the house we’d been renting, but we lacked the money to transfer the deed. The owner of the deed decided to evict us.
We live in a small, rural West Virginia town where only two shelters are available—and none that would take our pets. So we lived in a tent with our children and animals for three months.
I’m deeply saddened that our leaders would criminalize people suffering poverty, as if we were living in a Charles Dickens novel.
Losing your home is incredibly destabilizing. Without a fixed address, you can lose benefit payments, official mail, jobs, and other critical opportunities. When I was evicted, I didn’t have time to switch over my license plate to my new vehicle, which caused me to lose my license. I still haven’t been able to regain my driving privileges.
We had to walk long distances for food and water, and we had no way to shower. My children had to change schools, and the emotional strain on them caused behavioral and mental health challenges that no child should have to experience.
We survived with help from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps. We got a tiny amount of cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program and health care through Medicaid.
We were eligible for housing assistance, but the wait was impossibly long due to the lack of available affordable housing. That’s not just a problem in West Virginia—the United States has a shortage of more than seven million affordable housing units for people with very low incomes.
Let me tell you this: No one wakes up one morning and chooses to be homeless. No one says to themselves, “How fun would it be for my kids and my family to live in a tent without food, water, school, or transportation?”
The owner of the deed to our house finally relented and reduced the deed fee so we could take possession of our house and move back home. But so much damage had been done to the kids already—and we lost most of our rescued animals.
Once housed, I finished my Masters in Public Administration. But with a felony conviction from my earlier days suffering through addiction, finding a job is challenging. My husband works but has medical challenges. We live paycheck to paycheck, hoping another disaster won’t put us out on the street.
Things need to change for families like mine. The Supreme Court’s cruel decision to penalize people who are suffering is a big step in the wrong direction. How is fining and arresting people who are too poor to pay going to help?
Here’s a better idea. We need to invest in affordable housing, ensure people are paid living wages, and support struggling families with a robust safety net.
I’m deeply saddened that our leaders would criminalize people suffering poverty, as if we were living in a Charles Dickens novel. Our laws must be better, and we must hold our officials accountable. We work hard at doing the right thing—they should, too.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular