Justices Scalia And Thomas's Attendance At Koch Event Sparks Judicial Ethics Debate

[Judi Lynn]

Justices Scalia And Thomas's Attendance At Koch Event Sparks Judicial Ethics Debate
First Posted: 10-20-10 01:23 PM | Updated: 10-20-10 01:42 PM

Reports that two Supreme Court Justices have attended seminars sponsored by the energy giant and conservative bankroller Koch Industries has sparked a mild debate over judicial ethics.

On Tuesday evening, the New York Times reported that an upcoming meeting in Palm Springs of "a secretive network of Republican donors" that was being organized by Koch Industries, "the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes." Buried in the third to last graph was a note that previous guests at such meetings included Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the more conservative members of the bench.

It's not rare for a Justice to attend a seminar sponsored by a group with judicial or political interests. Members of the court, for instances, often speak at academic institutions or think tanks. Virtually all companies, meanwhile, are affected by the judicial branch. So long as Scalia and Thomas did not participate in overt partisan activities, there would be no apparent conflict of interest.

~snip~
But the Koch event appears more political than, say, the Aspen Ideas festival. In its own invitation, it was described as a "twice a year" gathering "to review strategies for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it." In addition, it's not entirely clear what the two Justices did at the Koch event. A copy of the invitation that served as the basis for the Times's report was posted by the liberal blog Think Progress. It provided no additional clues. A call to the Supreme Court and an email to a Koch Industries spokesperson meanwhile were not immediately returned.

More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/scalia-thomas-koch-industries_n_769843.html

[thereismore]

1. As it should. Scalia has a history of this. nt

[louis-t]

2. What ethics?

And anyone who can't translate "to review strategies for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it." hasn't been paying attention.

[xxqqqzme]

4. Exactly. It doesn't appear

they are trying to hide their agenda. No translation necessary.

[BeFree]

3. They stole the presidency from Gore

They pissed on us and said it was raining.

For you people who want to vent your anger, instead of venting on Obama, take a piss on these two instead. Why not? Are you scared of them?

[EC]

5. Aspen Ideas festival?

I wonder if this has anything to do with Scooter Libby's plea to Judith Miller?

[MineralMan]

6. All the more reason to work as hard as possible to create a

filibuster-proof Senate and a strong majority in the House. Impeachment is the only way to remove SCOTUS justices. Let's do that, please.

[wordpix]

7. I'm no lawyer but to me it rings of conflict of interest

[Uncle Joe]

9. Yes, either conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest and they both serve to

undermine faith in the institutions for which the perpetrator is a member of, in this case not only the judiciary; but the highest level of it.

I would view both conflict of interest or even the appearance of conflict of interest as basic 101 ethic violations.

[66 dmhlt]

8. I think Thomas is particularly vulnerable

Scalia and Thomas whoring themselves out to the Koch brothers for what they themselves characterize as a political fundraiser is a clear violation (and possible impeachable offense) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges … EXCEPT for the fact the nine justices of SCOTUS exempted themselves from those ethical rules. Under Canon 4, Section C of the Code:

(A) judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose.

Source (DOC):
http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02A-Ch02-OGC-Post2-Code-of-Conduct-for-Judges.pdf

But it gets worse! While I have concerns about the mental stability of Ginni Thomas (Clarence’s wife) after her bizarre call to Anita Hill, what’s more troubling is she formed – and is paid by – a radical right-wing political advocacy group (Liberty Central) with $550,000 donated by two – count ‘em, JUST TWO – donors. And Liberty Central’s stated goal is to oppose the “leftist tyranny” of Pres. Obama.

What his wife does is bad enough, but Clarence clearly stands to benefit financially from his wife’s politically partisan consulting business – and of course he is in a “supreme” position to deliver a partisan advantage. Now that’s intolerable!

It erodes public trust in our judiciary – especially when done under a complete cloak of secrecy about her clients, their payments and her remuneration. At the very least Virginia Thomas needs to open her books for public scrutiny. But we know that will not voluntarily happen, because why would corporations hoping to influence Clarence make payments to Ginni if all they are going to get is a public disclosure that would force Clarence to recuse himself?

Source for Ginni’s 501(c)(4) Reich-wing political advocacy group:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09thomas.html?_r=2&hp

[Skittles]

10. this should be all over the news, front and center

but when I Google, I find only, er, "mild debate" in progressive sites. Why?

[The Wizard]

11. Scalia and Thomas names mentioned in the

same sentence with ethics can only mean the word violation follows ethics.

[fasttense]

12. There is no doubt in my mind that these right wing radical activist judges are on the take.

I find it curious that Roberts complained about not making much money as a Dancing Supreme and then suddenly shut up about it. Why I wonder?

I bet money is being funneled to them in the same manner as Communist China funnels money to the GOP campaign. Obviously Ms. Thomas is being bribed in order to influence her husband. People who say otherwise are deluded.

Our justice system died on the day the Dancing Supremes handpicked the Bushes as our president. Now, the system is nothing more than who can influence whom for how much money. There is no justice in America's courts anymore. Anyone with money can break the law.