(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



The Flags of Our Follies: High-Flying Hypocrisy in the Highest Court [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2024-06-03  

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when the robes of justice leave behind all pretense of impartiality and cozy up to the very symbols of sedition. It is with a smirking chagrin that we must address the problem of Justices Alito and Thomas, whose recent decisions to cling tightly to their Supreme Court seats amidst cries for recusal ring louder than the jarring clanks of an upside-down flagpole in a stiff breeze.

As for Justice Thomas, his marital union with a fervent advocate of the “Stop the Steal” movement — a cause slightly less credible than the Loch Ness Monster’s candidacy for Senate — has not moved him to consider the optics of adjudicating over matters in which she was an enthusiastic participant. The logic here is so circular it could be used as a template for crop circles. His stance seems to be that if the bench is warm, why leave it just because your spouse has been casting ballots in the wistful plebiscite of conspiracy theories?

Next, let us turn to the venerable Captain of our ship, Chief Justice Roberts, who seems to have adopted the esteemed role of Supreme Gatekeeper of Ethical Queries, responding to concern with a venerable “Talk to the hand, for the ears are cloaked in propriety.” The Chief Justice, cited for his rejection of the notion of using his opinion assigning power for agenda-pushing, now appears to define “agenda” to exclude such trivialities as the rule of law, the standing of the Court, or the quaint old notion of justice appearing to be done. His refusal to meet with the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss such fanciful things as ethics — or even to acknowledge that the Court’s standards might be viewed from the outside as slightly tarnished — can only be seen as an attempt to preserve the Judiciary’s independence, in much the same way that sticking one’s head in the sand from the perspective of an ostrich preserves one’s dignity.

Amidst all this judicial jocularity, we must not forget the Conservative zealots who seem to believe that legislating from the bench is akin to tossing breadcrumbs from a park bench — distributable at their whim to the eagerly awaiting pigeons of ideology. With their new supermajority, they have cruised through audits of precedent like a wrecking ball through a glass museum, stopping only to ensure that each swing of the pendulum advances their brand of jurisprudential mayhem.

Thankfully, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has proposed an ingenious, albeit quaint, notion: actuating the quaint idea that justices can be compelled to recuse, supported by — wait for it — none other than the Constitution itself and the statutory words of 28 U.S.C. Section 455. Imagine using the law to ensure its fairness. But hope, much like the lifespan of a fruit fly, is often fleeting. It hinges on the daring assumption that the Department of Justice and the Attorney General possess the fortitude to raise this gauntlet and challenge the untouchables on the bench.

If the Justice Department shrinks from this task — as is the oft-trodden path of bureaucratic hesitance — it seems democracy might need to be roused from its slumber. It’s a call for the legions of voters to potentially sweep Democratic majorities into Congress, whose purview would include ethics investigations into justices with a penchant for politically charged décor and alliances. The prospect of reform looms like a shadow over the rattled, yet hitherto unfazed, Court. It’s the ultimate manifestation of checks and balances, where the pen is mightier than the gavel, and the ballot is mightier than the bench.

So, as we ponder the tapestry of tribulations woven by the hand of judicial infallibility, let us not forget that, in the end, it’s all a choice. A choice to hoist flags that do not flutter in the gusts of justice, a choice to disregard the courtly calls for recusal, and a choice by the people, possibly, to say, ‘enough is enough’ with a scribble of ink once every two or four years. After all, a court that cannot trust itself to ethical self-scrutiny leaves the Court of Public Opinion as the final arbiter of its integrity. Much like history, public opinion tends to be written by those who take the pen into their own hands when the quill is denied by those who’ve misplaced their moral compass.

~Dunneagin~

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/6/3/2244386/-The-Flags-of-Our-Follies-High-Flying-Hypocrisy-in-the-Highest-Court?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/