Justice Elena Kagan suggested that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appoint a panel of outside judges of high respect to review allegations.
Justice Elena Kagan announced Thursday that she supports the creation of a panel of judges to investigate potential violations of the Supreme Court’s new ethics code. She spoke out on an issue of contention, as President Biden is increasingly calling for reforms at the high court.
Kagan suggested Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appoint a panel of experienced and highly respected judges to review accusations of wrongdoing made by justices. Some of them have been questioned in recent years about unreported gifts, luxury travel deals, book deals, and potential conflict of interest in important cases.
Roberts announced last fall that, after criticism by Democratic lawmakers and experts from outside about alleged ethics violations, the court had for the first agreed to adhere to an ethics code specifically for justices. The policy didn’t include any way to investigate alleged misconduct or to sanction or clear justices who may have violated the rules.
Since then, the court’s recent rulings and a new round ethical questions have prompted more calls for change.
Kagan was interviewed in front of a group of judges and attorneys at a judicial meeting. She said that the code of ethics adopted by all justices is “a good one,” but deemed criticism of its failure to be enforced “fair.”
She said that while “normally rules have enforcement mechanisms attached, this one does not.” “However difficult it may be, we should and could try to find a mechanism to do this.”
Kagan said that such a plan was not in the works at the high court and that she spoke only for herself.
She said, “This is just one person’s opinion.”
Kagan, who is one of the three liberals sitting on the Supreme Court, had a candid and wide-ranging conversation with the 9th Circuit Conference. She discussed her dislike for the practice of justices writing separate opinions, even when they are in agreement with the result of a case.
She said that when she loses a case, she is more likely to “wall slam” rather than cry. This was in response to a question regarding Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s recent admission that she wept after some opinion announcements.
Kagan spoke less that a month after a historic term, in which the conservative majority of the high court greatly expanded the presidential powers while making it harder for government agencies and the federal government to regulate vast areas of American society.
The court divided along ideological lines with two major decisions. It granted former President Donald Trump — as well as all presidents — broad protection from prosecution for their official actions and threw out a precedent of 40 years that required judges to defer government agency experts in deciding how best to implement ambiguous laws passed by Congress.
Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and other justices in the Trump case have refused to recuse themselves due to perceived conflicts of interest with their wives’ political activities.
The public’s confidence in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low. According to a June Associated Press/NORC poll, seven in ten Americans believe that the justices base their decisions on their personal ideologies rather than acting as a check on the government.
The Washington Post reported that Biden was preparing to support legislation establishing term limits for justices, and an ethics code with enforceable standards. He is also weighing whether to ask for a constitutional change to remove broad immunity from presidents and other constitutional officers.
In his Wednesday night speech in the Oval Office, Biden stated that the issue will be a top priority for him during his last months as president. The president stated that he would call for Supreme Court Reform, as it is crucial to our democracy.
Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., held a press conference Thursday in front of Supreme Court Building. Rep. Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia, and Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) praised the Judiciary Act 2023. The act would add four seats to the Supreme Court and “quickly correct the wrongs that have brought us where we are now,” Markey stated.
Conservatives and Republican legislators have been against such changes. They accuse liberals of trying disrupt a court which has moved dramatically to the left with the addition three Justices nominated Trump. Biden’s proposed changes are unlikely to be passed unless Democrats control both chambers of Congress as well as the White House.
Kagan has made it a habit to reflect on the 9th Circuit’s just-completed judicial term and express her frustrations at the annual judicial conferences. Madeleine C. Wanslee (an Arizona bankruptcy judge) and Roger M. Townsend (a Washington state attorney who is a member the the lawyer representative coordinating committee of the conference) interviewed her on Thursday.
The justice admitted that she gets frustrated, disappointed, and sad when the majority of the court “didn’t play by the rules” in the judicial enterprise. This is especially true when they depart from previous precedent.
She predicted instability and uncertainty after the decision was made to curtail federal agency powers and overturn long-standing precedents such as Chevron.
Kagan, Sotomayor, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson all issued strong dissents in that case. In her dissent she stated the majority’s decision would result in “breathtaking changes” by shifting the power to courts and making judges the final arbiter on regulatory issues.
The U.S. Government has used the framework created in Chevron extensively to defend regulations that protect the environment, the financial markets, the consumer, and the workplace. This was the third ruling in as many months that the court had overturned precedent. In 2022, the court will have overturned Roe v. Wade and in 2023 it will eliminate affirmative action for college admissions.
Kagan wrote the Chevron precedent had fallen victim to “a blatant assertion of judicial power.” The majority is apathetic and craves power.
In another important case, the court voted to uphold federal law that prohibits domestic abusers from owning guns. Five justices of the majority chose to write separate opinions, showing their disagreements on how lower courts should review Second Amendment challenges against other gun laws.
These individual opinions, also known as concurrences or concurring opinions, prevent the court from determining whether a case is fri