WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. assured the public that members of the Supreme Court are not exempt from ethics rules for federal judges, including the requirement to step aside from a case if there are reasonable doubts about their impartiality.
But each justice gets to decide on his or her fitness to rule on a case, he said Saturday, and their decisions are not subject to further review.
“This is a consequence of the Constitution’s command that there be only ‘one Supreme Court.’ The justices serve on the nation’s court of last resort,” Roberts said.
Without citing specifics, the chief justice addressed a controversy that has swirled around the Supreme Court in the run-up to the constitutional challenge to President Barack Obama’s health care law.
“I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted,” Roberts wrote in his year-end report on the federal judiciary. “They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience…. I know that they each give careful consideration to any recusal questions that arise in the course of their judicial duties.”
Some House Democrats and liberal activists have insisted that Justice Clarence Thomas should step aside, or recuse himself, from the case because his wife, Virginia, led a tea party group calling for the “repeal of ‘Obamacare.’”
At the same time, some Republicans and conservative activists have insisted that Justice Elena Kagan should step aside because she was Obama’s solicitor general when the health care bill was signed into law in March 2010. A few weeks later, the president nominated her to the high court. Kagan told senators in her confirmation hearing that she would withdraw from any case in which she had done legal work before joining the court.
Kagan stepped aside from more than 20 cases in her first year. In early December, she signaled she would stay out of the Obama administration’s clash with Arizona over immigration enforcement.
But Kagan and Thomas have given no hint whether they will withdraw from the health care case.
Clarence Thomas should be removed from office for conviently forgeting ( for 13 years) to include his wifes income from the Tea Party Connection!
The I didn’t understand the question just dont make it!
Ever wonder why lawyers, Realtors, and bankers need ethics panels and welders, farmers, and carpenters do not? When ever I see a suit coming, I check the location and security of my wallet. I have never had one try to give ME money.
If you have a plastic card and a bank account, they’re already in your wallet.
I am sure that you are correct to an extent. They do have their hand in my pocket in some way. I do not have a mortgage, a car payment, credit card debt, or personal debt of any kind. I give my local credit union $2 a month for a checking and savings account. I doubt they are living too high of the hog at my expense.
——————————
Thomas is corrupt and should be removed from the court. Period
Kagan has already recused herself from many cases, so we can trust she’ll do the right thing on this. Thomas on the other hand has been doing the wrong thing, in his financial disclosure forms, for over a decade now. But hey, that’s the state of the court we’re in now.
Justice O’ Conner, recused herself several time when it came to telecommunications. Chief Justice Rehnquist recused himself when another attorney, who testified against his appointment, was presenting a case in front of the court. Justice Breyer recused himself not that long ago when an insurance case created an apparent conflict.
The question is, Will Clarence Thomas do the right thing? Probably not . It doesn’t make sense that a writ or a motion can be presented to the Supreme Court for a lower court’s judges refusal to recuse, but yet, a similar motion cannot be presented to the same court for one of it’s own members?