Republican Supreme Court Corruption Pt. CINQ
'Shady and corrupt': Barrett real estate deal added to list of Supreme Court ethics scandals.
Thursday reporting on a real estate deal made by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett months after her confirmation in 2020 was the latest evidence, said a government watchdog, that ethics reforms at the high court must either be imposed by the judiciary or Congress.
Days after ProPublica reported on Justice Samuel Alito's previously undisclosed private jet trip—funded by a billionaire hedge fund owner whose business has been involved in numerous Supreme Court cases—CNN revealed that Barrett has had financial dealings with the Religious Liberty Initiative (RLI) at Notre Dame Law School.
A Note Dame professor who had just taken a leadership role at RLI purchased Barrett's private home months after she was sworn in in October 2020.
The group, which advocates for religious freedom, was founded in 2020 and has filed numerous amicus briefs in cases related to the issue—related to questions surrounding abortion, public health precautions, and school prayer—since it was established. RLI has filed at least nine briefs with the court since the sale of Barrett's home.
The newly reported conflict of interest is one of several in recent months that have brought renewed scrutiny to the fact that the Supreme Court justices are not required to abide by an ethics code, as other federal judges are.
"Every federal judge is bound to an ethics code requiring them to avoid behavior that so much as looks improper, except for Supreme Court justices. Chief Justice Roberts has the power to change that, but so far he hasn't shown the courage."
"The endless drip of shady and corrupt Supreme Court dealings just further underscores the need for reform," said Kyle Herrig, president of the watchdog group Accountable.US. "Every federal judge is bound to an ethics code requiring them to avoid behavior that so much as looks improper, except for Supreme Court justices. Chief Justice Roberts has the power to change that, but so far he hasn't shown the courage. If he fails to do his job, Congress must do theirs."
CNN also reported Thursday that RLI funded a previously reported trip Alito took to Rome shortly after the court overturned Roe v. Wade, stripping millions of people across the U.S. of the right to abortion care. In Rome, the right-wing justice mocked critics of the ruling, which has been decried as a violation of international law by human rights experts.
Alito ruled in favor of RLI's positions stated in its amicus briefs in several cases, and neither judge has recused themselves from a number of high-profile cases involving the Initiative.
In recent months, government watchdogs have demanded accountability for alleged ethics breaches and conflicts of interest at the Supreme Court, including Justice Clarence Thomas' financial ties to Republican megadonor Harlan Crow.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing last month to make the case for legislation that would require the high court to follow an ethics code.
Although Barrett's home sale may not have violated any rules, Indiana University law professor Charles Geyh told Accountable.US, it adds to the "perception problem" regarding the justices' ethics.
"It is addressed by the court being much more vigilant in guarding against perception problems created by [the justices'] financial wheelings and dealings," Geyh said, "and going the extra mile to make sure that they not only are clean, but look clean."
Meanwhile, Fled Cruise dismisses latest Supreme Court bombshell:
Many members of Congress aren't buying Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's excuse after a blockbuster report revealed a luxury fishing vacation, paid for by a billionaire who had matters before the court. The latest ethics issue compounds ongoing questions about conflicts of interest on the Supreme Court.
Many members of Congress aren't buying Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's excuse after a blockbuster report revealed a luxury fishing vacation, paid for by a billionaire who had matters before the court. The latest ethics issue compounds ongoing questions about conflicts of interest on the Supreme Court.
Writing in The Wall Street Journal Tuesday night, Alito lambasted the ProPublica report that made the allegations before it was even published. In his article, he admitted to the "fishing trip" with hedge funder Paul Singer, but dismissed it as something he didn't need to report. Like Justice Clarence Thomas – who was the subject of a similar ProPublica report that claimed he'd been lavished with gifts from billionaire Harlan Crow – Alito is claiming that the private jet travel to Alaska and $1,000-a-day lodge he stayed in was really just "hospitality."
Singer is "a hedge fund billionaire who has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court to rule in his favor in high-stakes business disputes," ProPublica reported. But Alito claims that they've really only chatted on "a handful of occasions."
"These are just common sense issues. You don't do that," Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) told Raw Story on Wednesday at the Capitol.
And Rep. Tina Smith (D-MN) complained of the court, "You would think they'd want to get their act together."
Opinion of the Supreme Court has cratered over the past year, sinking to 41 percent approval at the end of May. A Marquette Law School poll revealed that that's down six points from Jan. 2023. Americans were already furious with the court for the decision to eliminate Roe v. Wade and that disapproval has only increased, an NPR survey showed. But the further drop came after the report of Thomas' ethics problems.
"I think that the first thing you have to see is that the Court is broken," Smith told Raw Story. "This ProPublica story about Alito is very reminiscent of the story of Justice Thomas."
Republicans have claimed that the Supreme Court stories are a "Democratic Witch Hunt," but Smith exclaimed, "no it's not! I would say that Supreme Court justices have a particular obligation to demonstrate to Americans that their ethics are beyond reproach and they can't seem to take the steps that they need."
"This is a fundamental part of having confidence in the system," Cardin agreed. "Our judges need to be not only free from conflict but the appearance of conflict. Being able to take free trips, that gives at best, the appearance of conflict. At worst, a conflict."
He also took issue with Republicans calling it a partisan attack, saying that the ethics of a branch of government should never be a partisan issue.
Smith intends to continue to press for expanding the court. "I think there is a growing understanding that there is something systemically wrong with how the court is structured. And people have started to understand that the basic notion of the nine Supreme Court Justices is not enshrined in the Constitution. And that's changed over time. Looking at that and understanding that if you want to restore balance in the Court, it's not going to happen by osmosis. It's going to happen if you take action."
Cardin wants to see stricter disclosure laws and restrictions, and standards.
"I recognize that the judicial branch has a certain level of independence, but these are issues that need to be dealt with. We cannot allow a member of the Supreme Court to be given these kinds of perks that Americans don't have," he said.
He recalled being speaker of Maryland's General Assembly and said that one of his first actions was to craft strict rules on issues like gifts under the table.
"I think it's something that they should take care of on their own. If not, the legislature should give it clear direction," Cardin said.
But when Raw Story asked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) about it, he said, "I'll tell you what, I'll answer that question when you tell me how many free flights Ruth Bader Ginsburg took. How many free flights Stephen Breyer took. Justice Sonia Sotomayor took."
He alleged that the press isn't applying the same pressure to Democratically appointed justices.
Cruz did go on record saying, "Rules should apply fairly and across the board."
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told reporters, "It'd be helpful to know which of the nine justices is opposed to even having that discussion" about ethics restrictions. "I'm hearing it requires unanimous consent...they would do well to go and take a look at public perceptions"
