'That has to change': Law professor rips Supreme Court’s 'hollow rationalizations' of ethics concerns

With the U.S. Supreme Court's approval ratings having reached historic lows and its reputation continuing to suffer, Democratic leaders are calling for the Court to adopt an ethics code. But Chief Justice John Roberts has adamantly resisted, insisting that such a code is not needed.

In an op-ed published by The Hill on July 25, law professor/author Steven Lubet (who teaches at Chicago's Northwestern University) examines the High Court's excuses for ethics violations — and slams them as "remarkably flimsy, almost beyond belief."

Lubet is highly critical of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom, according to ProPublica, accepted gifts from wealthy donors and failed to report it.

READ MORE: Supreme Court preserves college preferences for wealthy whites

"In a one-paragraph statement," the law professor explains, "Thomas opaquely claimed that he had sought guidance early in his tenure on the court from unnamed 'colleagues and others in the judiciary,' who advised him that 'this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends' was not reportable…. Unlike Thomas, Alito claimed no preexisting friendships with his benefactors, which did not stop him from playing the 'personal hospitality' card."

Lubet continues, "Although the statutory disclosure exception clearly applies only to 'food, lodging, or entertainment,' and not to transportation, Alito defended his nondisclosure by cobbling together several unrelated statutes in a tortured attempt to show that private jet flights constitute 'hospitality facilities.'"

Lubet also criticizes a Democrat-appointed justice, Sonia Sotomayor, for her "use of Court staff to bolster her book sales at speaking engagements," adding that her "excuse was that her 'chambers staff' was only recommending 'the number of books based on the size of the audience so as not to disappoint attendees who may anticipate books being available at an event.'"

The law professor laments, "The three justices' hollow rationalizations display a patronizing expectation that the public will ultimately buy whatever they say, no matter how implausible. But to paraphrase the late Justice Robert Jackson: Supreme Court justices do not get the last word because they are infallible; they only believe themselves infallible because they get the last word. When it comes to judicial ethics, that has to change."

READ MORE: Senate Democrats announce Supreme Court ethics bill as top Republican immediately declares it DOA

Law professor Steven Lubet's full op-ed for The Hill is available at this link.