Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity.
Canon 5(a)(2): A judge should not ... make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.
It is not uncommon to treat those at the apex of authority somewhat
differently from others—even to exempt them from burdens which apply to others.
Sometimes this is a reflection of insiders protecting their own. But, it is
also frequently a reflection of deep wisdom: the kind that comes with practical
experience in the world and its affairs.
The federal Code of Judicial Conduct applies to all Article III judges—except members of the
Supreme Court of the United States. Is that because Supreme Court justices do not
need ethics? No. Is it because they are better human beings, citizens, and
jurists than their lower court colleagues? No.
Consider recusal when judicial
bias is asserted. Each Supreme Court Justice must decide to recuse on his or her own. If an appeal
to the full Court were permitted, then the minority’s ability to exercise the
judicial power of the United States would exist only at the sufferance of the
majority. If an appeal were permitted to non-members, then you will have
effectively transferred responsibility from the Supreme Court to their minders.
And who will mind the ethics of those minding the Supreme Court?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?
The thoughtless "reformers" who propose as remedy making individual Supreme Court Justices answerable to an outside authority in the regular course of litigation are proposing a cure far, far worse than the disease. See EDMUND BURKE, REFLECTIONS ON THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE 210 (London, J. Dodsley 1790) ("A certain quantum of power must always exist in the community, in some hands, and under some appellation." (original emphasis removed, emphasis added)). See generally Seth Barrett Tillman, Closing Statement, The Original Public Meaning of the Foreign Emoluments Clause: A Reply to Professor Zephyr Teachout, 107 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 180, 203 (2013).
Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?
The thoughtless "reformers" who propose as remedy making individual Supreme Court Justices answerable to an outside authority in the regular course of litigation are proposing a cure far, far worse than the disease. See
Of course, there is always the extraordinary political remedy of
impeachment, or perhaps admonishment by a resolution of Congress.
Seth
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SethBTillman (@SethBTillman)
No comments:
Post a Comment