The scandals embroiling the U.S. Supreme Court are becoming hard to track. Last spring, ProPublica revealed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas received gifts worth millions of dollars from billionaire Republican activist Harlan Crow. Justice Samuel Alito was likewise caught accepting free travel from a billionaire Republican, Paul Singer.
In 2022, the court suffered an unprecedented leak of Alito’s Dobbs draft opinion, the decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade. The Dobbs leak preceded the uncomfortable revelation that right-wing activists have been donating big bucks to the Supreme Court Historical Society in the hopes of gaining access to Supreme Court justices.
Speaking of right-wing activists, let’s not forget the involvement of Ginni Thomas, wife of Clarence Thomas, in the effort to overturn the 2020 election.
And just this past week, The New York Times reported that another flag likely flown in solidarity with the Jan. 6 insurrection was displayed in front of a home of Alito’s.
Lost count yet?
These scandals raise a host of questions about the highest court in the land. Has Thomas received any other valuable gifts from billionaire political activists? Does he agree with his wife that the 2020 election was stolen? What are Alito’s sincerely held beliefs about the violent attempt to keep Donald Trump in office? And who really did leak the Dobbs draft opinion anyhow?
Illinois U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin has the power to seek answers to these important questions. As chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he could hold hearings on Supreme Court corruption and judicial ethics. And he could call Thomas and Alito to testify. It is not unusual for sitting justices to appear before congressional committees.
But Durbin has refused to exercise this power. Instead, whenever a Supreme Court scandal occupies the headlines, Durbin issues a sternly worded letter calling the involved justice to recuse himself from any related cases. Compare that milquetoast response to the way Republicans usually handle scandals involving Democrats — with headline-grabbing hearings and investigations. Unsurprisingly, the justices have thoroughly ignored Durbin’s docile pleas to do the right thing.
At a certain point, Durbin’s hands-off approach to the high court becomes an endorsement of these justices’ misconduct. The time has come for him to hold hearings on Supreme Court corruption.
— Nick Wallace, Chicago
Ashamed by the legal profession
As an attorney who practiced law for five decades, I am now ashamed to be in a profession in which a judge of the highest court in America, Samuel Alito, publicly took a controversially political position by flying the American flag upside down.
In light of this activity, I am also having difficulty explaining to my grandchildren how decisions of the current U.S. Supreme Court can be considered unbiased and decided with equal justice for litigants.
It is time for Congress to develop a code of judicial ethics that applies to the Supreme Court of the United States, backing the code with legal consequences for justices who have so little regard for their position.
— Richard J. Aronson, Highland Park
Court, precedent turned upside down
Through my years of college and law school study, I was taught that judges were given longer terms of service — life terms, basically, in the case of U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal judges — than members of the legislative and executive branches.
The intent is to allow the judiciary to be protected from changing day-to-day winds, pressures of popularity, prejudice and electability to ensure judges long-term protection as they resist mob hysteria. The intent is to create a dependable balance.
Principles such as stare decisis and precedent were given a healthy portion of respect, stabilizing the ship of state and gently turning its slower-evolving charted course.
Constitutional protection for the right of privacy, evolving over many decades, has been set by the Mitch McConnel/Donald Trump court into a tailspin under the undisciplined watch of Chief Justice John Roberts, shocking women and other members of the governed.
No code of conduct or right to appeal dissuades the new brand of Supreme Court justice.
— James E. Gierach, Palos Park
Why bring Schill in for hearing?
I think I missed something, at least regarding why Congress called Northwestern University President Michael Schill to testify about pro-Palestinian demonstrations and antisemitism. He’s Jewish (as am I), so he’d know about antisemitism. Got it. He’s also the head of a private university. Is Congress going to call the heads of the many private Christian universities and colleges to ask them if they have addressed antisemitism?
I bet most college students, if they haven’t come from a major metropolitan area or an enclave, have never met a Jew — or a Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu or Muslim.
If Christians don’t want the rest of us secular people to judge them all as nationalists, then they have to understand that other religions feature a broad tent.
Many of us realize antisemitism comes from ignorance. Often, we Jews realize this and let antisemitic remarks just slide. If we address them, we’re considered confrontational. But I digress.
Why does Congress think that only larger universities, or universities where demonstrations have occurred, need addressing about antisemitism? It shows their own ignorance.
We know inflation is bad — yet the companies reporting record profits are not being called to testify in Congress.
Brilliant.
— Robyn Michaels, Chicago
Rep. Stefanik deserves censure
“Guilty as charged” was U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s committee’s approach that wrongly cost many Americans their reputations, careers and lives because of his 1950s Un-American Activities Committee hearings. It was an unethical display of power because Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Last week, U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik accused Northwestern University President Michael Schill of being guilty before he could speak. She told him he was there to answer questions, not ask them. This approach by a public servant should be censured.
The three university leaders before her Thursday were all experienced and well-educated men. They should be respected instead of condemned. This committee’s job is to learn and determine facts to propose legislation, if needed — not to kill the messengers.
— Robert C. McCullough, Northwestern Class of 1956, Des Plaines
No wonder committee disbanded
In his op-ed explaining his agreement (capitulation) with university protesters (“Why I reached an agreement with protesters at Northwestern,” May 10), Northwestern University President Michael Schill writes: “First and foremost, we needed to protect the health and safety of our entire community, including our Jewish students. Second, we believe in free expression, but that most assuredly does not include antisemitic or anti-Muslim harassment or intimidation.”
In his interview during the recent hearing in Washington, when he was asked why he didn’t consult his advisory committee, formed to prevent antisemitism and hate, before making an agreement with the protesters, he responded that this was not “in the purview” of that committee and it wasn’t feasible to do so in a timely matter.
So it’s not important enough to take the time and it’s not within the purview of the antisemitism and hate prevention committee to be involved in decisions that may affect “the health and safety” of Jewish students and to ensure free expression “does not include antisemitic … harassment or intimidation”? It seems like these concerns are exactly those that the committee should be addressing.
It’s no wonder members of the committee resigned and the committee disbanded.
— Dr. Oren Lakser, assistant professor of pediatrics, Northwestern University
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
