THE NEED FOR ETHICS AMONG SUPREME COURT JUSTICES | Gorsuch Takes a Victory Lap | Why The ABA Is Making Changes
November 17, 2017
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER?
|Kimberly Robinson with Bloomberg Law reports on a recent recusal from JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN that reminds of the need for ethics rules at the Supreme Court. Kagan’s chambers recently discovered a conflict in an immigration case, Jennings v. Rodriguez, that’s been pending for more than a year and a half. GABE ROTH of Fix the Court noted the “episode marks the third term in a row in which a justice heard an argument and then belatedly noticed a conflict.”
WINNER WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER
|At the Federalist Society’s annual conference yesterday, JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH mocked the group’s critics along with his own detractors, poking fun at claims that the organization has been secretly taking over the judicial branch. Gorsuch said, “If you’re going to have a meeting of a secret organization, maybe don’t have it in the middle of Union Station and then tell everybody to wear a black tie. It’s not a shadowy cabal in need of Joe McCarthy.” Josh Gerstein with POLITICO reports.
ED BOARD OVERTURE
|The Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times asserts that if the First Amendment means anything, then “government officials shouldn’t be able to punish dissenters, even rude ones, by selectively subjecting them to arrest — even if the arrest might be justified on other grounds.” The piece comes in response to the Supreme Court’s decision this week to hear a case from Florida that could potentially lead to an affirmation of that principle.
TIME TO FACE THE CHANGE
|In The Washington Post, Ronald Cass considers why the American Bar Association is changing how it reviews potential judges. He opines, “Returning to more strictly professional standards would better serve the bar association, the nominees and the courts.”