The six-person majority of far-right “Supremes” who presently dominate America’s judicial system seems intent on demonstrating that having a seat on our Supreme Court does not mean there is anything Supreme about them.
Consider one bottom-line measure of character that is central to the Court’s integrity: financial ethics. This simply requires the judges to file annual reports to reveal any sources of outside income and gifts, thus providing some minimal assurance to regular folks that the eminences are not taking personal payments from moneyed interests seeking favorable Court rulings.
But unlike all other top government officials, Supreme Court justices have a loosey-goosey system for reporting financial conflicts of interest. It’s called: “Trust us.”
Thus, for years, Clarence Thomas has been taking millions of dollars’ worth of gimmes from a right-wing corporate billionaire, while voting to impose this benefactor’s plutocratic agenda as the Law of the Land. Yet, in two decades of financial “reports to the people,” there is not a whisper from His Supremeness that he has regularly pocketed a wealth of gratuities from this special “friend.”
Or take John Roberts, the Chief Justice, who poses as a paragon of judicial independence while aggressively pressing an agenda of corporate supremacy over the Common Good. While he’s not known to take payments from corporate interests – his wife does. She’s been paid millions of dollars in commissions to recruit lawyers for firms that have business before Justice Roberts. Yet, until this special interest enrichment of his family was recently uncovered, Roberts never mentioned it in his annual reports.
Meanwhile, every federal official must agree to abide by a code of ethical behavior – with the exception of nine officials who have exempted themselves, saying “Trust us.” Yes, the Supremes.
Since the Court refuses to fix itself, the people must. To help, go to fixthecourt.com.
Enjoyed this post? Please consider sharing with friends and on social media!
The Motown Supremes, Chicken Supreme… But the "Supreme" Court?