The Supreme Court is making the news almost daily…..many of us are calling for some sort of reform with the Court…..something has to be done to try and control these political hacks that are suppose to be neutral to the political antics of the political parties…..they are not.

One of my concerns is that these judges are not acting in a responsible way and are being unduly influenced by outside players….

In a letter to Roberts, Reuters reported, the Democratic lawmakers questioned whether Roberts had done enough in his role as the presiding officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States to uphold the integrity of the federal judiciary and enforce ethic rules.

Warren and Jayapal cite a Wall Street Journal report that revealed 131 judges failed to recuse themselves from cases involving companies in which they or their family members owned stock—a scope of ethics violations the lawmakers called “stunning.”

 

The letter cites legal precedents from the code of conduct that require judges to recuse themselves from all cases where financial interest is involved, calling the extensive ethic breaches, at least in part, “a direct result of the inadequate processes for judicial accountability.”

 

“These conflicts of interest have affected hundreds of cases and the integrity of the justice system,” the letter reads.

The letter references other instances in which Supreme Court justices similarly did not recuse themselves from cases despite potential financial conflicts, including through ownership of individual stock, as further evidence of a “systemic failure that requires accountability.”

 

Warren and Jayapal argued that their comprehensive ethics legislation—the Anti-Corruption & Public Integrity Act—if passed—would close the large gaps in the U.S. judicial ethics system by requiring public release of disclosure reports, overhauling the recusal system, and barring judges from owning individual stocks.

The first word from President Biden’s commission charged with exploring changes to the Supreme Court was mostly about what the panel hasn’t done. “The Commission did not attempt to discern whether the Court is beset by a crisis of legitimacy today, nor do we take a position on whether the Court’s independence is at risk or whether it has become too anti-democratic,” said a draft document released before a meeting Friday. The panel was asked to consider specific changes, but its final report, to be presented to Biden in mid-November, won’t included actionable recommendations, CNN reports.

That was more or less the plan, but the cautious, hesitant approach evident in the drafts still irritated people, mostly Democrats. “This was not even close to being worth the wait,” said Brian Fallon of Demand Justice, who criticized the “the paralysis-by-analysis” approach, per the New York Times. On one major proposal, adding members to the court, the drafts show members seem to agree that would be legal but not on whether it “would be wise,” per MSNBC. The documents cited polls showing the idea is unpopular. The commission is focusing too much on the politics of expansion and not enough on potential benefits, said Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP.

Many Republicans don’t want to see the panel doing anything more, saying expansion would upend norms and already has received too much attention, per the Washington Post. “Far-left progressives are clearly trying to expand their political power under the guise of ‘court reform,'” said Kelly Shackelford of First Liberty Institute. Two conservatives quit Friday, leaving 36 members on the panel. Although the commission sidestepped the legitimacy question, a Gallup Poll in September found the Supreme Court’s approval rating down to 40%.

There’s more support for imposing 18-year term limits on justices. But members aren’t sure how that could be done. It might take a constitutional amendment, or maybe just a statute. Some members don’t want to do anything that could “encounter so many constitutional problems.” Biden threw cold water on that idea anyway on Friday night when he was asked if he supports term limits. “No” was his answer. Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law expert on the panel, isn’t sure about term limits, either. But he worries about the effects of rejecting every potential improvement because of possible risks. “Many people, and I include myself in this, believe we are indeed in a ‘break-the-glass’ moment,” he said.

Did you really think that there was going to be any help by this Commission?  If so, then you have been asleep for the last 40 years.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”