Justice Alito Aims For New Low in Supreme Court Ethics

In a continuation of the story of Conservative judges disregard for ethical constraints, Justice Alito has announced he will not recuse himself in an upcoming case involving a lawyer who has been working with Alito (interviewing him twice for the WSJ; once on questions regarding Alito’s omissions from financial disclosure statements.

David B. Rivken is the lawyer in question. Since he has been working with Justice Alito on the defense of Alito’s ethics, it seems obvious that Alito should not judge a matter Rivken is bringing to the court.

But Alito, consistent with this stonewalling every question of is ethics, doesn’t seem the matter that way.

Public trust in the Supreme Court has collapsed under Chief Justice Roberts, who seems unwilling to take any steps to recur integrity other than assuring the public that everything is fine.

So we are left with blatantly unethical performance from the court’s right wing and no clear remedy to this situation, undermining one of the three pillars of our Republic.

This is not really about politics but comes down to an individuals own code of honor and ethics.

The SC judges hold positions unique to anything else we have in our society. They are not just private citizens but agreed to take on what is probably the single most important role in this Republic.

They not only have to act ethically but act in a way to ensure there is not even an appearance of impropriety. All SC justices should have their personal finances and relationships open for scrutiny. No one forces them to take the role and they can always resign if they so wish.

We cannot eradicate improper behaviour or people taking advantage of their postions but with the SC we should do everything to limit it and make it difficult. We find someone exploiting a loophole, close the loophole.

Two reactions:

  1. How do we close the loophole? Chief Justice Roberts is insisting that these are all internal Supreme Court matters but then the court is refusing to act on them; with Alito, among others, insisting that there is nothing wrong. Roberts has made it clear that no other branch of government has authority in this. So the loopholes remain.

  2. “We find someone exploiting a loophole, close the loophole.” In this view, does the person who took advantage get a pass while the loophole gets closed? The only precedent I can think of involving a Supreme Court Justice is Abe Fortas… and he left the court.

Scalia is dead.

1 Like

Thanks for catching that. My mistake. I fixed it.

Where was libs outrage when Elena Kagan failed to recuse herself with ACA?

Oh that’s right…crickets.


I keep straining my head about why a Supreme Court justice should recuse himself over having given two interviews. It hurts.


So you are opposed to tighter ethical standards for Supreme Court justices?

Of course they should apply across the board.

Because the issue is not the interview; it’s the interviewer, who was helping Alito make the case that his behavior was appropriate and is now a principal in a case before the court. If the interviewer was not bring a case to the court, the interview wouldn’t matter.

So, an interview would so prejudice a Supreme Court justice’s decision that he should recuse himself? Nope. Still hurts.

1 Like

You are ignoring the fact of a working relationship between a Supreme Court Justice and an attorney before the court. The issue is not the interview, as much as you pretend that it is.

Did AG Loretta Lynch recuse herself when she had to decide whether or not to indict Hillary when she got caught meeting with her husband Bill 3 days prior? NOPE and libs didn’t care. So…why the care now? Lemme guess…this is different?


So does an MSNBC host or any news host have a working relationship with Trump because they interviewed him?


The SCOTUS is the enemy of the Left again these days. It hasn’t been like this since they accused the Justices of stealing the election foe BOOOSH!. :man_shrugging:


Everybody knows everybody in those circles.

Most would have to recuse themselves from most cases by the standard being pumped here.

You’ve walked right into Cleek’s Law here. You line up your words and arguments perfectly, but it doesn’t matter.


Pushing back against your authoritarian rule/dictatorship…yeah I would say that’s Conservative.


Is there a difference between an political appointee like an AG who can be impeached and who can be superseded by a Special Counsel and a Supreme Court Justice who insists that justices are accountable to no one but themselves.

There certainly is.

1 Like

Yes the do, and when any of those hosts are appointed to a judgeship they should recuse themselves from sitting on any case involving Donald Trump.

Of course, journalists don’t argue cases before the Supreme Court either, but when one of them does, any justice who was helped argue their ethical flaws by the journalist should recuse themselves.

I assume you agree.

And since the Supreme Court is “the enemy of the Left” you are ready to overlook blatant ethical failures as long as you get the decisions you prefer.

The expectation that Supreme Court Justices conduct themselves in a fashion that is above ethical reproach should be shared by all Americans. Is it shared by you?