Justice Scalia Sparks Concern About Politicized Court
By Tyeasha Williams
Special to Trice Edney Wire from the District Chronicles
Justice Antonin Scalia
(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Two weeks ago, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia decided to talk to a closed-door Tea Party Caucus about the Constitution. This decision, by the outspoken conservative has sparked concern about increasing politicization of the Court.
Common Cause, The non-partisan watch-dog organization, which promotes open, honest and accountable government, has criticized Scalia’s decision as political activity that undermines public confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The American people expect impartial justice from the Supreme Court,” said Bob Edgar, Common Cause president and CEO. “The last thing we need in these divisive times is Supreme Court justices appearing to be allied with a political faction.”
“Justice Scalia’s acceptance of Rep. Bachmann’s invitation shows poor judgment and could lay the ground for his recusal in future cases, such as court challenges to President Obama’s health care reform law,” Edgar said. The Judicial Code of Conduct bars federal judges from engaging in political activity, including ‘making speeches for a political organization’ or attending a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization.’”
The code applies to all federal judges, but is not binding on the nine Supreme Court justices, Edgar noted. Nonetheless, federal law on disqualification of judges is binding; it requires that “any justice of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
The federal disqualification law was enacted in 1974 after a series of judicial scandals, most notably a controversy over Justice Abe Fortas’s role as a confidant and advisor to President Johnson, whose orders and legislation he would have to review.
Reginald Leamon Robinson, law professor at Howard University said what makes Scalia’s case so problematic is that the Supreme Court is the last court a case can be tried in.
“We would like to think that any case has a fair chance and that a decision has not been rendered before it gets there. An appearance of bias is just as damaging to the nation at the Supreme Court level – perhaps even more so -- as it is at the trial level.”
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told the Los Angeles Times that Scalia’s meeting with the Tea Party Caucus suggests an alliance between conservative members of the Supreme Court and conservative members of Congress. Turley, too, feels Justice Scalia showed “exceedingly poor judgment.”
But Robert Alt, deputy director of the conservative Center for Legal and Judicial Issues for the Heritage Foundation, sees nothing inappropriate in Justice Scalia addressing a Tea Party Caucus.
“People are trying to paint the event as a partisan affair,” Alt complained, pointing out that there were Democratic House representatives in the Caucus. Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) was among Democrats in the meeting, he said.
“It’s actually kind of useful in our democracy for both parties to have conversations with justices to talk about functions of the government and how it is,” Alt said.
Alt said that there is a strong tradition of justices talking to legislatures to give insight into the judicial process that they would otherwise not have much knowledge about. Justice Thurgood Marshall and Justice Stephen Breyer did so, too, he said.
Common Cause is calling for immediate legislation to ensure that the Code of Conduct’s ban on political activity applies to the high court, Edgar said.
“Unfortunately, some justices seem to think they are above the ethics rules,” Edgar said. “We shouldn’t have two standards for what is okay and what isn’t for federal judges. I think our court of last resort is getting way too politicized.”