Good survey of the Supreme Court’s closely linked problems with impartiality and ethics by @kelseyreichmann.bsky.social & @benjaminweiss.bsky.social. A couple of notes: first, the Roberts Court has generally ruled on behalf of Republican Party electoral interests whenever these have been at issue.
"This is not going to end well for the court if it doesn't get its house in order or if Congress doesn't step up."
-CREW's Virginia Canter on the urgency of ethics reform for the Supreme Court
This goes back to Citizens United and Shelby County, over a decade ago. The Court’s Republican majority tended to be less predictable in cases not touching on GOP electoral interests. In more recent years — and especially since Republicans got a six-member majority — the Roberts Court….
….has grown increasingly assertive in cases touching on matters of policy, matching Chief Justice Roberts’ institutional interest in expanding the Court’s turf with the ideological zealotry of the other five Republicans. Bruen and Dobbs are two examples of bald rejection of precedent to create….
….policy outcomes Republican Justices (and the Republican Party) favored that also asserted the primacy of the Court’s authority. The Court majority’s assertiveness must be related to Justices lack of accountability and their close personal ties to Republican politicians and donors.
The second observation is about the Court’s three liberals, Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson — specifically, about their silence as the Court majority steers the institution into dangerous waters. The three liberals neither share the partisan commitment of the six Republicans, nor enjoy….
….the largesse wealthy Republican donors have lavished on Justice Thomas in particular. They might be expected to object to both. Perhaps they do — but only in private, for whatever good that does.
