In an interview with CNN, the former director of the US Office of Government Ethics dismantled a letter issued by the Supreme Court in response to accusations that several justices are engaging in law-breaking by claiming to be above the Ethics in Government Act.
Speaking with CNN's Zachary Wolf, legal expert Walter Shaub took issue with the arrogance of the court -- Chief Justice John Roberts included -- for refusing to be accountable to anyone but themselves while dismissing the authority of the Judicial Conference of the United States to review any accusations.
As Shaub put it, the current conservative-majority court is putting on display "a culture of exceptionalism, where the Supreme Court’s justices just feel that they’re above law, above question and above everything else in the government."
With Wolf citing the ethical clouds hovering over Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni, Neil Gorsuch and new questions now being raised about Roberts' wife Jane raking in "$10.3 million in commissions for her work for elite law firms, one of which argued a case before her husband," Shaub claimed the court's defensive letter rings hollow.
"The idea that you are the law, whatever you do is fine, and there’s no accountability – I get that they can get away with that because they’re not elected. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as giving its own members lifetime appointments, and the only remedy would be impeachment," he explained. "They know that until one party controls 60% of the Senate, they’re never going to be impeached. So this is a case, I think, of absolute power corrupting absolutely."
Addressing the court splitting hairs when it comes to financial disclosures mandated by the Ethics in Government Act, Shaub claimed the justices are playing fast and loose with its requirements.
'What does apply to them is the Ethics in Government Act, which establishes the financial disclosure requirements, and it’s explicit about covering the Supreme Court justices," he explained. "So this is a misdirection, suggesting that somehow complying with what the Judicial Conference says is voluntary. What’s not voluntary is following the laws of this country that were enacted by Congress. The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 required disclosure of gifts. It is explicit that the personal hospitality exemption does not apply to gifts from corporations, and is explicit that it only covers food, lodging and entertainment."
Referring to Thomas and his wife being lavished with trips and gifts courtesy of conservative Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, Shau explained bluntly stating, "There’s no way to characterize a flight on a private plane or a sea voyage as any of those things."
Addressing Gorsuch's sale of a property to the CEO of a law firm with cases before the court, Shaub claimed the justice didn't break the law -- but it was ethically questionable.
"One thing I would say to avoid confusion is, technically, Gorsuch did not violate the disclosure law when he didn’t identify the purchaser of that land. Because the law itself does not require disclosure of the identity of the purchaser. But the court was using that financial disclosure form that included a field for identifying the purchaser. And here’s where their argument is silly. … While not a violation of law, which they claim doesn’t apply to them anyways, it is a violation of the commitment the Supreme Court made to the public about what it would disclose," he explained. "And that goes back to the fact that Gorsuch wanted to hide who he was selling it to, which goes back to a consciousness that that was really bad behavior – which goes back to the fact that they really need an ethics code."
You can read more here.
