From the Hill: Bill would create ethics code for Supreme Court justices

We brought this up in 2305 Tuesday. The Supreme Court lacks and ethics code - the legislature is about to give it one. Is this constitutional?

- Click here for the story.

As the Supreme Court is gearing up to hear arguments Tuesday in what could be the nation’s most influential case on gay marriage, Democratic lawmakers are calling on the high court to adopt a code of ethics for justices.

The Supreme Court Ethics Act, reintroduced Thursday, would require the Supreme Court to adopt a code of the ethics within 180 days. The nine justices are currently exempt from the code of conduct U.S. judges follow to ensure neutrality and transparency in the nation’s courts.

“There is absolutely no reason why Supreme Court Justices shouldn’t be subject to the same code of conduct as all other federal judges,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in a news release. “The American people deserve to know that our highest court is held to the highest ethical standards, which is why we introduced the Supreme Court Ethics Act.”

A similar bill was first introduced in 1973. In 2012, 212 legal scholars sent Chief Justice John Roberts a letter urging him to adopt a code of conduct for U.S. judges. To date, more than 130,000 Americans have signed a petition asking Roberts to adopt a code of ethics for the high court.

Because Congress determines how many justices sit on the Supreme Court and what they are paid, lawmakers say creating a code of conduct is part of their purview as well.

"The questionable activities of some of our Supreme Court justices have been well documented — participating in political functions, failing to report family income from political groups, and attending fundraisers,” Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said in a press release. “It doesn’t make sense that members of the highest court in the land are the only federal judges exempt from the code of conduct.”

- Click here for the Supreme Court Ethics Act.

From the Texas Tribune: Ethics Commissioners: Lawmakers Went Backward in 2015

At least one 2306 student is focusing on ethics reform in the recent legislative session - which is usually shorthand for campaign finance.

Though the governor named ethics reform as one of his priorities, its didn't happen. Unless the goal was to weaken exiting laws. That's the assessment of what the legislature did according to the Chair of the Texas Ethics Commission.

- Click here for the article.

“If there was any ethics reform, it was in reverse,” Paul Hobby, chairman of the Texas Ethics Commission, said Thursday at a public meeting that came less than 10 days after lawmakers adjourned their 84th session with the following accomplishments:

- Creating a new loophole to protect lawmaker spouses from certain financial disclosure- Giving themselves and state bureaucrats hometown prosecution when they're accused of white-collar crimes in Austin- Failing to agree on and pass sweeping ethics reform

“There are some bills on the governor’s desk that just scare me to death,” Commissioner Jim Clancy, the body’s former chairman, said at the meeting.

The bipartisan commissioners largely focused on Thursday on measures awaiting Abbott’s signature that would open up a “spousal loophole” allowing politicians to shield information about their spouses’ financial holdings.

The proposals would essentially repeal an agency rule, drafted last year in the wake of ethics violations by a former House member, that spells out what must be included in personal financial statements filed by the governor, members of the Legislature and other high-ranking state officials – including certain information about their spouses’ property and financial activity.

The Tribune previously discussed the collapse of ethics reform here.

The legislature seems to have made it easier to keep financial information secret, meaning that the general public has little idea what interests are influencing legislators.

- Click here for all proposal made regarding ethics this past session.

Are Supreme Court Justices free from outside influence?

2305 students might want to think this over since you're looking at Supreme Court cases. The federal courts are designed as they are - with appointed judges who serve for life - in order to make them independent, but are they?

They are the only court without an ethics code.

An increasing number of people - including members of Congress - think this is a big problem.

- Click here for the article.

Traditionally, Supreme Court justices were near recluses, churning out rulings as they quietly worked behind stately marble columns. But they have begun to pop up in public venues—giving speeches, promoting books, celebrating marriages and even attending operas—like never before. Their new celebrity is also drawing a flurry of new, and often critical, scrutiny.

Watchdog groups are calling on the nine justices, who are appointed for life barring a moral or ethical cataclysm, to be more open and accountable, particularly about any stock investments they may have in the corporations whose legal disputes often wind up on their docket. But it’s highly unlikely the court will drop its veil of secrecy and embrace any efforts to curb its freedom to act as final judicial arbiter as it sees fit.

One change urged by a group called “Fix the Court” calls on the justices to disclose more information about any possible or actual conflicts of interest that arise from their financial holdings and other outside entanglements.

Fix the Court is hardly alone. The nine justices have been urged to change their ways for decades, particularly amid controversies like 2000 Bush v. Gore presidential contest decision was decided or the recent campaign finance remake in Citizens United.

But calls for curbs have fallen on deaf ears, leaving the court as the country’s only judicial body without an established ethics code. The Supreme Court relies on voluntary compliance. In April, Democratic lawmakers introduced the Supreme Court Ethics Act, which would require the top court to adopt written ethics rules within six months of the law’s enactment.

“There is absolutely no reason why the Supreme Court justices shouldn’t be subject to the same code of conduct as all other federal judges,” said Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut and the bill’s sponsor, when introducing the bill. Since 1973, all other federal judges have been required to adhere to a code of conduct.

Proposals for making the national government more transparent

The Sunlight Foundation discusses 16 changes they would like to see made. Worth a look.

Court of Inquiry looking into past actions of Texas judge in wrongful conviction case

The Texas Tribune reports on an unusual - for Texas at least - case in Williamson County. A sitting judge will face a court of inquiry that will determine whether he should face trial for withholding evidence in a murder case he prosecuted as a district attorney two decades ago. The man convicted in the case has since been exonerated. There are allegations that the real suspect is the since dead Sheriff of Williamson County, but evidence suggests that the evidence was suppressed during the original trial, and that further evidence has not been provided since the investigation began sometime back.

The investigation coincides with efforts to pass legislation this session that would address similar actions in the future.

The court of inquiry could last up to two weeks, and it is unclear whether state district Judge Louis Sturns, who has been appointed to oversee the case, will issue findings at the conclusion of the hearings or later. If Sturns finds that Anderson committed a criminal violation, he could issue a warrant for his arrest.

The court of inquiry is not the only threat to Anderson’s career, though. The State Bar of Texas filed a civil lawsuit against him last year, alleging that Anderson withheld evidence and made a false statement to the court when he told Judge Lott he had no evidence that could be favorable to Morton’s claims of innocence. If he is found to have violated professional rules of conduct, Anderson could be disbarred.

As the court of inquiry action unfolds just 30 miles north of the state Capitol, lawmakers are also looking on. Morton is lobbying them to pass laws that ensure prosecutors are held accountable for mistakes that cost innocent people years of liberty.

“Not only is this a prosecutor being practically put on trial, but it’s a sitting judge,” said Jennifer Laurin, a professor at the UT-Austin School of Law. “This is a person of enormous stature in the criminal justice system who is being called to account.”

I don't have much on courts of inquiry, but here are a few links that explain the process. They are unique to Texas and are used when there is evidence of a wrongful conviction.

- Texplainer: What is a court of inquiry and when is it used?
- Texas Statues - Chapter 52.
- Grits for Breakfast weighs in.
- Previous coverage from the Huffington Post.

Catching up with Texas Tribune's Bidness as Usual Project

Since I last linked to the series, several more articles have been added:

- Texas Ethics Reform: A Long, Tortured History. The story highlights the impact the Sharpstown Scandal had on the legislature, as well as scandals that preceded and followed it.


- Some Public Business Remains in the Shadows. It is very difficult to get the information necessary to determine if a conflict of interest exists regarding a member's vote on a bill because relevant information is difficult to obtain.

- Most State Lawmakers Won't Disclose Tax Returns. Tax returns are the best way to see where legislators earn their money - and how much of it - but most think this is too much transparency.

- Legislators Can Carry Bills That Benefit Them. There are no rules in place that limit the ability of a legislator to guide legislation through the chamber if the bill personally benefits them.

More to come, its a great series.

How Would Weiner do Before the House Ethics Committee?

Not well apparently:

The panel that would investigate Weiner’s sexually charged online relationships is stacked with Southern, swift-justice Christian conservatives unlikely to relate to a sexting, swearing New Yorker, and liberal Democrats who have dedicated their careers to protecting the rights of women, both in the workplace and online. If Weiner wants to save his hide, he might have more luck in front of an old-fashioned firing squad.
Follow these links for more information on the House Ethics Committee
- Wikipedia.
- Official Website.
- Times Topics.

Charles Rangel and the House Ethics Committee

From the NYT:

The House ethics committee ruled on Monday that there was evidence to support 13 counts of misconduct by Representative Charles B. Rangel, and began considering whether to formally convict and recommend punishment against him.

With Mr. Rangel absent, the panel listened to its chief counsel as he methodically presented the evidence against Mr. Rangel, which was based on 549 exhibits, dozens of witness interviews and thousands of pages of financial documents. Members then met in executive session and later announced they had found the facts in the charges against Mr. Rangel to be “uncontested.”

Those charges included accusations that Mr. Rangel had accepted rent-stabilized apartments from a Manhattan developer, failed to pay income taxes on rent from a Dominican villa and solicited charitable donations from individuals with business before Congress.

- House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
- Wikpedia: House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
- Source Watch: House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
- Time Topics: Ethics.

Topics - 7/23/10

In the news, and relevant to the subject matter:

- The House Ethics Committee is set to try Rep. Charles Rangel for ethics violations.
- Democratic House Campaign Committee outlines effort to retain House Majority.
- Climate Bill to be trimmed.