As members of the U.S. Supreme Court continue facing scrutiny for sweeping corruption at what have sometimes been described as cartoonish levels, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is seeking action — though there’s obviously the remaining complication of continued GOP control of the House combined with the party’s disinterest in serious reforms.
“House Judiciary Committee must investigate credible allegations of potential misconduct & conflicts of interest on the Supreme Court,” Schiff said Saturday on Twitter. “Expensive travel, undisclosed property sales, headhunting fees — all involving parties with interests before the Court. @Jim_Jordan, do your job.” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is currently the chairperson of the House Judiciary Committee, in association with which he also leads a subcommittee focused on addressing the so-called weaponization of the federal government. Generally speaking, that phrasing is just Republican-speak for federal actions that Trump and his allies don’t like, however well founded.
Recent revelations about corruption involving Justices on the Supreme Court were kickstarted in large part with reports on the relationship between Clarence Thomas and Harlan Crow, the latter of whom is a billionaire and longtime supporter of the GOP. Thomas and his wife, Ginni, have participated in extremely pricey travel over the years through means like private jets and a yacht thanks to Crow. The travel at times could have cost Thomas hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time to obtain on his own, and it went mostly undisclosed, despite what even are apparently longstanding requirements for the reveal of gifted travel to federal judges including Thomas.
More recently, a report has also circulated about the millions and millions of dollars earned by Jane Roberts in job placement in the legal profession. She’s the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts, and for what is evidently a long time at this point, she’s linked lawyers with roles — earning massive commissions.
Much of her income, details seem to indicate, isn’t even based in Jane herself seeking connections. It’s an interest on either side (lawyer or firm) seeking assistance in job placement, a feature of her career to which she herself has attested. “Successful people have successful friends,” Jane Roberts has stated, according to Insider, which summarized that a bulk of her work functioned on referrals. A concern here, like with Thomas and Crow’s ties, is that the large transactions could facilitate developing some kind of favor with involved judges. If a law firm working on a case before the U.S. Supreme Court had just recently or shortly thereafter paid large sums to the Chief Justice’s wife, why on earth should observers just assume he’d be impartial? Democratic advocacy for change, whether through expanding the court’s size, which has been repeatedly done throughout U.S. history, or imposing binding ethics rules, continues to remain formidable.
