A House Democrat has introduced an impeachment resolution against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, citing allegations of the Court acting as a political instrument, enabling partisan gerrymandering, and favoring wealthy interests. This long-shot effort, lacking co-sponsors and unlikely to advance in the Republican-controlled House, reflects significant Democratic frustration with the Court’s conservative majority and recent landmark decisions. The resolution’s introduction highlights the growing political divide surrounding the judiciary and renewed calls for ethics and accountability reforms.
Read More
Congressman Steve Cohen has introduced six Articles of Impeachment against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, alleging violations of the Constitution and his oaths of office. The articles accuse Roberts of leading the Court to become a partisan force, systematically favoring the powerful and wealthy over the populace, and exempting the President from criminal liability. Furthermore, the articles cite the Court’s arbitrary rulings and Roberts’s failure to fully report assets and recuse himself from cases involving potential conflicts of interest, particularly concerning his spouse’s employment.
Read More
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s recent book tour, targeting right-wing media outlets and presidential libraries, aimed to reinforce conservative trust in the judiciary and America’s founding ideals. However, his emphasis on the United States as a “creedal nation” rather than a “Christian nation” has drawn sharp criticism from within the very movement that supported his appointment. This backlash, particularly concerning his remarks on citizenship, highlights a growing faction on the right that views traditional constitutionalism and civic nationalism as insufficient for contemporary populist goals, even suggesting a betrayal of conservative principles. The controversy underscores a widening chasm between Gorsuch’s vision of American identity and the increasingly ethnically-defined nationalism espoused by certain segments of the conservative movement.
Read More
This article posits that Justice Clarence Thomas is now considered the worst justice on the Supreme Court, surpassing even Samuel Alito. Thomas’s recent public address, where he inaccurately linked progressivism to historical atrocities like Nazism and communism, is cited as a key example of his “intellectually dishonest ideologue” stance. The author contrasts this view with the historical reality of the Progressive Era, which is credited with saving American capitalism and preventing fascism through crucial reforms. Furthermore, Thomas’s alleged disregard for judicial ethics, particularly his failure to recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election despite his wife’s involvement, is presented as further evidence of his problematic tenure.
Read More
US Senate hopeful Graham Platner advocates for Democrats to “deal with” the Supreme Court if they regain power, suggesting oversight and potential impeachments to remove justices. He believes holding Supreme Court justices to the same ethical standards as federal judges could lead to the impeachment and removal of at least two. Platner also proposes expanding the Supreme Court’s size when a Democrat is in the White House, emphasizing the need for senators willing to wield such power.
Read More
There is a “compelling case” for the impeachment and removal of at least two Supreme Court justices, according to Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner. Platner stated that if Supreme Court justices were held to the same ethical standards as federal judges, this action would be warranted. He emphasized that electing senators willing to utilize such power is crucial for exercising ethics oversight over the court. This sentiment comes amid historically low public trust in the Supreme Court.
Read More
The Judicial Conference refused to refer Justice Clarence Thomas to the Department of Justice for investigation despite his failure to disclose lavish gifts and travel, citing jurisdictional concerns and claiming his amended disclosures addressed the issues. This decision effectively guts the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which explicitly grants the Conference this referral power, leaving Thomas without accountability for his actions. The Conference’s assertion that Thomas is now compliant is contradicted by evidence showing continued omissions in his disclosures. This lack of accountability highlights the judiciary’s inability to police itself and foreshadows a likely lack of investigation by the incoming Trump administration, solidifying a system where powerful figures face no repercussions for ethical violations.
Read More
The Judicial Conference rejected requests to refer Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Justice Department for ethics investigations. This decision, outlined in letters to Senator Whitehouse and Representative Johnson, cited both justices’ amended financial disclosures and legal uncertainty regarding the Conference’s authority over Supreme Court justices. The Conference Secretary argued that Congressional authorization would be necessary for such referrals. Despite these actions, critics contend the Judicial Conference failed to adequately address whether Justice Thomas willfully violated disclosure laws.
Read More
The U.S. Judicial Conference declined to refer ethics complaints against Justices Thomas and Jackson to the Justice Department, citing the lack of clarity on whether such referrals are permissible and noting ongoing external investigations. Justice Thomas will adhere to updated disclosure guidelines for gifts and hospitality, addressing concerns about unreported luxury trips. Justice Jackson has already amended her disclosures. The Conference’s inaction underscores the need for Congress to establish a more robust mechanism for investigating judicial ethics violations.
Read More
A Senate investigation reveals widespread ethical violations and conflicts of interest among Supreme Court justices, both current and deceased. The report details numerous undisclosed luxury trips accepted by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, often from individuals with cases before the Court, with Justice Thomas’s gifts unparalleled in modern history. This behavior, facilitated by figures like Leonard Leo, highlights a right-wing ecosystem of influence peddling surrounding the Court. The report underscores the Court’s failure to self-regulate and calls for Congressional action to restore public trust, though such action is currently unlikely given the current political climate. The report cites specific instances of undisclosed travel, gifts, and political activity by justices and their spouses that created clear conflicts of interest.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker