Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a member in this Congress of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is asking U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts for an investigation of Justice Samuel Alito after the latter complained publicly about the prospect of regulation from Congress of the Supreme Court.
Whitehouse styled his push as a formal ethics complaint, though he did so without there actually being an established process at the Supreme Court for handling such pushes for investigation. The Senator was concerned about the prospect of Alito having participated — unwittingly or, well, not — in a campaign against action by the Senate including investigations. “On the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have heard in every recent confirmation hearing that it would be improper to express opinions on matters that might come before the Court,” the Senator summarized. “In this instance, Justice Alito expressed an opinion on a matter that could well come before the Court.”
Alito had specifically asserted in an interview that he believed there to not actually be any authority in the Constitution for the House and Senate to control the Supreme Court. In his missive to Roberts, Whitehouse expressed concerns about the foundation for obstructive action this could provide in the area of investigations. “Both committees’ inquiries have been stymied by individuals asserting that Congress has no constitutional authority to legislate in this area, hence no authority to investigate. Justice Alito’s public comments prop up these theories,” Whitehouse wrote to the judge.
Adding even more potentially serious issues, Alito was speaking in that interview with a lawyer who, besides working with conservative activist Leonard Leo, was that very month refusing pushes from a committee of Whitehouse’s for information on the same grounds of Congress’s alleged lack of authority to impose controlling rules.
Alito is facing controversies similar in nature to those infamously facing fellow Justice Clarence Thomas. Both, reports revealed, received pricey benefits in the form of travel and lodging that they largely did not reveal in required financial disclosures, though such arrangements could facilitate the development of conflicts of interest impacting decisions that can affect millions.
