Ruth Marcus of WaPo writes about Justice Alito’s recent predilection for writing op-eds in the Wall Street Journal, and his allergy to legislation requiring ethics regulation of SCOTUS:
But let’s assume, charitably, that Alito meant to contain himself to ethics rules. He’s still wrong. Since 1948, Congress has required federal judges — including Supreme Court justices — to recuse themselves from deciding cases in which their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Is that unconstitutional? Since 1978, it has required federal judges — including justices — to file financial disclosure forms. Is that unconstitutional? (The justices, including Alito, say they voluntarily follow those rules.) Since 1989, it has imposed strict limits on outside income and gifts for federal judges — including justices. Is that unconstitutional? Just last year, Congress amended the ethics rules to mandate that federal judges — including justices — promptly disclose their stock transaction. Is that unconstitutional?
I can’t help but see such a law being appealed to, ummmm, SCOTUS eventually. And if the liberal wing was paying attention, they’d all recuse themselves. For obvious reasons.
Leaving the conservatives holding the bag. Find such a law unconstitutional? Or accept that they, like their colleagues in inferior courts, must meet minimum ethical requirements?
Or all recuse themselves?
