Litigation

On Judging the Ethics of Justices

By Peter Hardin

Supreme Court justices need to set clearer rules about partisan political activity, Dahlia Lithwick writes in a Slate commentary, entitled “Running with gavels.”

Lithwick recaps questions that have been raised recently about ethically appropriate conduct by justices and also their spouses. She also quotes remarks by the executive director of Justice at Stake, Bert Brandenburg, about justices advocating on issues related to the judiciary:

“The federal canons of ethics explicitly permit and encourage involvement in activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. Ethics specialists like NYU law professor Steven Gillers note that the bar on political activity is focused on advocacy for candidates, not issues.”

When it comes to Lithwick’s own ideas about the justices and recent questions dealing with such issues as speeches to partisan political groups, she writes:

“I think it’s time the justices clarify, as a group, what’s permissible and what isn’t. If they are going to give speeches and attend conclaves, they should explain what kinds of speeches and what kinds of meetings are OK. Nobody is telling the justices what to say or who to spend time with. But it would help if they could offer some clue as to where they draw the line on such matters and why.

“And then, I humbly suggest, they should stay as far from that line as possible.”

To learn more about some of the controversies at issue, see Gavel Grab.

Full post as published by The Gavel on November 19, 2010 (boomark / email).