Propriety and the Supreme Court

 

Much to the consternation of Chief Justice John Roberts and other justices, the public's opinion of the Supreme Court has sunk to an historic low. This loss of public favor is attributable, in large measure, to the nature of the Court's recent decisions, which appear to be politically and religiously driven. While little can be done to alter that dynamic, other than to appoint more open-minded justices, there are measures which can and should be taken to dissipate the "stench" which now envelops the Court.

Most importantly, the justices should have no connection with or participation in events sponsored by the Court's Historical Society which raises money from unidentified donors who pay to meet the justices even as they have cases pending before the Court. At the very least, the identity of the donors should be made public.

The justices should be subject to the same code of ethics which governs the conduct of all other federal judges and they should not be absolved from the need to recuse themselves from matters in which their spouses may have an interest.

All of the seats in the courtroom should be available to the public and none should be reserved for the privileged few. Finally, the proceedings should be regularly televised so that all may observe the arguments made to the Court and the responses made by individual justices.

Santos Investigation

 

Congressman elect George Santos says he is the victim of a smear perpetrated by the New York Times which has exposed the myriad myths he told the public as the basis for his campaign for the House.
The statement put out by Mr. Santos, in response, does not deny the truth of the Times’ revelations. Instead, he says he will make a further response in the near future and relies on his intent to keep his campaign promises.
One can only surmise that Mr. Santos, in effect, is complaining that he has been smeared by the truth.

Case Will Test States' Control Over Elections

 Start with the given that the framers of the Constitution did not trust the populace to elect presidents, so they delegated that authority to electors chosen by state legislatures (which were also, for the same reason, empowered to select senators). We have come a long way since that originalist disdain for the wisdom of the common man (women were not even in the equation).

Now the People determine the occupant of the presidency, though not necessarily by a majority, given the peculiarities of the Electoral College. But perhaps not for much longer should the Supreme Court adopt the almost universally reviled, at least in legal circles, notion that state legislatures have almost unchecked power to oversee federal elections. The argument fostered by election deniers and Republicans bent on extreme gerrymandering, is that state legislatures are free to ignore state courts, state constitutions and governors' vetoes in their drawing of districts and oversight of elections. The likely result of this assault on democratic principles, if it succeeds, will be to enable state legislators to reject the choice made by voters and substitute their own slate of presidential electors. Should the Supreme Court sanction such a return to colonial era methodology, our fragile democracy surely will be ended.

Justices Weigh Religion Rights Vs. Bias Laws

 The conservative majority of the Supreme Court seems poised to strike down a Colorado law that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. The conservative justices seem inclined to allow businesses that offer services involving expression, as distinguished from the sale of goods, to refuse to serve gay couples. 

The justification for allowing such discrimination is the protection of free speech based upon religious conviction. If the court so decides, it will have gotten it wrong on two counts. Free speech, in the guise of denied service, is cabined when a person or business offers wares or services to the public. An offer to sell must be made without invidious discrimination.

Excusing such discrimination, as an exercise of religious liberty, is neither acceptable in a free society nor protected by the Constitution. Persons of true faith would not harbor such intolerance and a claim of religious entitlement cannot be upheld when its exercise violates the protected rights of others.