There is no fundamental issue with what the founding fathers laid out to be the structure of the Supreme Court and its subsidiaries. The members of the court are chosen by the president, who is selected by the general population. Thus, the Supreme Court justices represent the will of the people. Instead, the issue lies in what the founding fathers failed to include in their initial groundwork: accountability.
The Supreme Court has no term limits or code of ethics, and all nine sitting justices have pushed back against potential independent ethics oversight. This lack of accountability allows for a visibly partisan judicial agenda, and my perspective as a liberal has left me particularly conscious of some of the court’s more influential decisions in recent years. Judicial precedent has had little influence over many of these decisions, with the majority’s reasoning often betraying extreme political bias.
A notable part of the Supreme Court’s story these last few years, and one that may be to blame for the partisan state of the modern court, is the presence of special interests. Every single justice has taken privately-subsidized trips around the nation and the world. The funds for these trips have often come from those with pertinent interest in Supreme Court proceedings. Even retired liberal justice Stephen Breyer [reportedly] accepted 225 total subsidized trips
from 2004-2016.
Beyond gifts and subsidized trips, special interests have found other ways to “donate” to Supreme Court justices. In 2017, shortly after he was appointed to the Court, conservative justice Neil Gorsuch successfully sold his Colorado home to a wealthy CEO of a major law firm, Greenberg Traurig, with whom Gorsuch has sided on multiple court cases since. The CEO paid between
$250,000 and $500,000, and Gorsuch has sided with his firm on eight of its 12 cases before the Court.
Despite the numerous examples of bribery, Supreme Court justices consistently demonstrate a lack of awareness of the issue. Justices across the ideological spectrum have consistently fought against legislative oversight. Additionally, when writing about McDonnell vs United States (2016), a case where Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell was convicted of bribery in a direct quid pro quo where he gained over $175,000 in return for his support of his benefactor’s special interest, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that McDonnell’s support of the special interest failed to qualify as an “official act” and thus did not warrant bribery charges. This case has made prosecution of government officials on bribery charges
unilaterally more challenging, clearing the way for the Supreme Court to continue on its path of corruption. The sheer scale, clarity, and pervasiveness of the bribery prevalent among Supreme Court Justices cost the judiciary all the trust it deserves.
“The Supreme Court of the United States is supposed to interpret the Constitution and laws and make sure the rule of law is enforced.”
However, recent rulings by SCOTUS have caused many Americans, myself included, to lose confidence in the court to rule impartially. We’ve seen evidence of this lack of impartiality in recent court rulings, how justices are chosen, and the role of outside influences.
One well-known recent ruling that showed that the Supreme Court was not impartial was the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade, which also overturned 50 years of precedence and federal protection around women’s reproductive health and the right to abortion care in the case Dobbs v. Jackson. This ruling allowed states to pick and choose what to keep and ban around women’s reproductive health options, and in the case of many politically conservative majority states, they chose to ban them.
Though this decision made many ultra-conservatives happy, it upset a large portion of the American public who believe abortion rights should be legal.
Another area where there is a lack of impartiality is in the process of appointing judges to the Supreme Court.
Between 2017-2020, three conservative justices were appointed to the SCOTUS under former President Donald Trump and the majority Republican Senate. This now leaves the Supreme Court unbalanced, with three liberal justices and six conservatives.
Historically, the president would choose who they wanted to be appointed to the Supreme Court and then the Senate either approved or denied the choice. This meant that there had to be some compromise on candidates. But, one of those three conservative picks that Trump inherited was the result of the Republican-controlled Senate ignoring former President Barack Obama’s choice, delaying the process until Trump was president.
When it comes to outside influence, in the news recently, we’ve seen Justice Clarence Thomas taking over $4 million of gifts, including vacations, private jet travel, and an RV from a billionaire Republican supporter, Harlan Crow, who had lots of cases that he’s interested in come before the Supreme Court. In the past, Justices have removed themselves from cases where they might have a financial or personal interest/involvement. Recently, many of the Justices have been reluctant to do this.
Based on these observations, I do not trust that the current SCOTUS is able or willing to rule impartially on cases.
YOUR TURN:
Take our poll, then share your reasons in the comments:
Comments are welcomed on most stories at The Rubicon online. The Rubicon hopes this promotes thoughtful and meaningful discussion. We do not permit or publish libel or defamatory statements; comments that advertise or try to sell to the community; any copyrighted, trademarked or intellectual property of others; the use of profanity. Comments will be moderated, but not edited, and will post after they are approved by the Director of RubicOnline. It is at the discretion of the staff to close the comments option on stories.
