NYT Editorial on Ethics, Politics, and the Law
By Lauren Forbes
Yesterday, a New York Times Editorial discussed the hazy lines between ethics, politics, and the Supreme Court. In thinking about issues like these, we revisit our nation’s inception.
The framers of the Constitution envisioned law as having authority apart from politics. They gave justices life tenure so they would be free to upset the powerful and have no need to cultivate political support. Our legal system was designed to set law apart from politics precisely because they are so closely tied.
The piece focuses on how the ethical judgments of the Supreme Court justices have became an important issue in the just completed term. It asserts:
The court cannot maintain its legitimacy as guardian of the rule of law when justices behave like politicians. Yet, in several instances, justices acted in ways that weakened the court’s reputation for being independent and impartial.
The editorial references Justices Scalia and Alito inappropriately appearing at political events, but focuses more on the most recent term’s rulings that reveal the court’s fundamental inclination to the right,
…with the conservative majority further expanding the ability of the wealthy to prevail in electoral politics and the prerogatives of businesses against the interests of consumers and workers
…
It struck down public matching funds in Arizona’s campaign finance system, showing again a contempt for laws that provide some balance to the unlimited amounts of money flooding the political system.
…
It tore down the ability of citizens to hold prosecutors’ offices accountable for failing to train their lawyers, even when prosecutors hide exculpatory evidence and send innocent people to prison.
Ultimately, the piece urges the justices to address doubts about the court’s legitimacy by making themselves accountable to the code of conduct. Then, rulings would more likely be seen as separate from politics and convincing as law.
