Signs of conflict of interest on the parts of Supreme Court justices have become more flagrant since 2004, when Justice Antonin Scalia was criticized for going duck hunting with Vice President Dick Cheney a few weeks after the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving Cheney (an appeal related to his management of the Bush administration’s energy task force).
Now the government-watching group Common Cause has asked the Justice Department to look into Scalia’s and Justice Clarence Thomas’ relationship with the Koch brothers, wealthy conservative activists whose gatherings the two have attended. Another controversy at the moment concerns Thomas’ wife Virginia, whose firm, Liberty Consulting, appears to be profiting from the decision the high court handed down last year in the Citizens United case. The ruling gave corporations new freedom to pump money into political campaigns.
Liberty Consulting offers “advice for short or long term projects and bringing resources to bear for impact—whether it includes a short term bill-reading project, assistance on congressional oversight efforts or an effective coalition for impact. Additionally, Liberty Consulting offers advice on optimizing political investments for charitable giving… or political causes.”
The company also touts Thomas’ effectiveness as a connected Washington “insider” —a self-description which, coming from the wife of a Supreme Court justice, smacks of influence peddling.
“Now,” writes Ian Milhiser on the Think Progress blog, “Ginni Thomas appears to have found a way to earn money off her husband’s actions as a justice. Clarence Thomas released countless amounts of corporate spending on U.S. elections, and Ginni Thomas can get rich advising those corporate clients on how to direct that spending.”
Don’t Supreme Court justices have the right do what other people do: attend meetings, go hunting, let spouses benefit from their (the justices’) professional standing? Not really. There is a Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and its rules are rather uncompromising.
The code prohibits judges even from attending dinners or other events sponsored by political organizations. It requires a judge to recuse him/herself from cases in which his/her spouse “is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings.” Moreover, says the code, “A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.”
