5 Comments

The best reason for the Supreme Court to not have a Code of Conduct is articles exactly like this one. The accusations of impropriety are implied and oblique. Accusations can be brought up by anyone who disagrees with anything the Supreme Court rules upon. Relying on phrases like "Avoid not only impropriety but the appearance thereof" puts all the power of accusations in the hands of those disaffected by rulings they don't like.

Expand full comment

@TomB's point is correct. It's also worth pointing out that there's been a media campaign against the Court since the Trump appointments. It's more than a bit disingenuous to rail against the Court in public for a couple of years and then point to its low approval ratings in polls as proof that it needs to change.

If you've got a few minutes, here's an example I happened to come across:

On September 9th, the 'Times reported on a ruling by Justice Sotomayor in favor of Yeshiva University in its dispute with the YU Pride Alliance (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/09/nyregion/yeshiva-university-lgbt-sotomayor.html). The case itself isn't relevant here. What's relevant is that the 'Times included the following paragraph:

"Since Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court in 2020, petitioners in religious freedom cases have almost always prevailed there."

Now, three things are of interest here: The 'Times did not think to point out that Justice Sotomayor is perhaps the most progressive member of the Court; justice Barrett had nothing to do with this ruling and "petitioners in religious freedom cases have almost always prevailed there" since well before her appointment -- often with the concurrence of progressive justices.

So out of nowhere the 'Times -- in a 𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘴 piece -- has seen fit to imply that progressive justices are not swayed in their rulings by their philosophy (or if they are, that's okay), conservative/religious justices are (and that is 𝘯𝘰𝘵 okay) and the Court as a whole is now skewed towards religion at the expense of civil rights.

I'd like to think the 'Times has a code of conduct that this violated.

Expand full comment

Historically, organizations do not police themselves well. This is the especially true with people at the top where responsibility and privilege get confused. There is no reason to believe the Supreme Court would be any different. However, a code of conduct with a system of binding arbitration/mediation enforced by the judiciary itself would be a step forward.

As junior officers/officials see the problems with senior officers/officials better than anyone else, enforcement should be delegated to the Appeals Court (somehow).

Expand full comment