How can the law permit Judge Aileen Cannon to preside over the trial of the man who named her to a $243,300 per annum job? A position with excellent benefits and a pension, which she will keep as long as she wants to, and has no mandatory retirement age.
Tradition expects Judges to recuse themselves with just the appearance of a conflict of interest. But expectation, without an enforcement mechanism, is a toothless guard dog.
This infirmity will not shock observers of the judiciary’s dismal attempt to self-regulate. After Pro-Publica busted Clarence Thomas for taking bribes (in the form of luxury vacations) without reporting them, Chief Justice John Roberts put his foot down. He issued an ethics code for SCOTUS — with no enforcement mechanism.
Even that pointless exercise does not address the extent of the problem.
An NPR investigation reveals that the ethics failures apparent in the Supreme Court have blighted the entire federal judiciary. We should not be surprised. Anyone who has owned a house knows if you see rot in one place, the odds are there is rot somewhere else — even if it is still invisible. It seems the judiciary is similarly afflicted. Thomas may be the poster child for what is wrong with the third branch of government. But he is not the only judge using their position to vacuum up billionaire benefits.
NPR put it thus:
"Federal judges — occasionally with family members or even their dog in tow — traveled to luxury resorts in locations as far-flung as London; Palm Beach, Fla.; Bar Harbor, Maine; and the outskirts of Yellowstone National Park for weeklong seminars. The judges received free rooms, free meals and free money toward travel expenses, together worth a few thousand dollars."
No one expects politicians to be honest — especially in the age of Trump. It used to be understood that elected officials would stretch and bend the truth, cherry-pick facts, and use imaginary friends to make a point. “Americans are fed up with … ”, “many people are saying ….”, “my constituents want … “. Now bald-faced lies are political currency.
But at least those bastards have to periodically reapply for their jobs — giving citizens an easy way to kick them out.
The Founders thought that job insecurity would make Judges too political, so they wrote lifetime tenure for federal judges into the Constitution. Aware that the President might name some scoundrel who would fool enough Senators to get past the vetting process, the Founders did add that Judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”
And if their Behaviour was not good, the Constitution allowed the removal of a bad Judge in Article II Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
It is an almost toothless remedy. There are currently 890 Article III federal judgeships. Historically, there have been multiples more — unfortunately, my AI does not know the number. However, in the 235 years since George Washington nominated the first federal judges in 1789, the House has only impeached 15. Eight were Senate convicted and booted. Three resigned before trial. And four were Senate acquitted.
As rare as the removal of federal judges has been, it is hard to imagine, in this hype-partisan age, that 67 Senators would ever again agree to convict an impeached judge. Consequently, these jurists have little to worry about.
Perhaps I have too dim a view of my fellow Americans on the federal bench. Maybe the gravity of their office will keep them on the straight and narrow. Just kidding. NPR’s investigation revealed what these scamps get up to. Here is more of their report:
"At one event, a far-right German politician with a history of racially inflammatory and anti-immigrant statements made a presentation to dozens of judges. At others, judges heard from an advocacy group that uses lawsuits in federal court to change environmental policy, as well as from corporate CEOs in the oil and pharmaceutical industries."
George Mason University has become a dating club where vested-interest suitors can pitch woo at receptive judges. As NPR further reports:
"Nonprofits, legal organizations and private universities all host judicial education events around the world. But those groups are generally not subject to public records laws. As a result, their full attendee lists are shielded from public scrutiny.
When it comes to the hosts of these events, George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., is exceptional in two ways.
For one, GMU — particularly the university's conservative-leaning Law & Economics Center — has long stood out as one of the most prolific hosts of judicial education events. Collectively, hundreds of judges have attended the university's events at luxury resorts over the years. GMU is quick to point out that the events are paid for by private donors.
The Law & Economics Center's website lists donors that include major corporations like Amazon, Pfizer, Google and Facebook, as well as the business lobby group the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to the New York Times, conservative activist Leonard Leo helped gather $30 million in donations to rename the law school after late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia."
Why is GMU quick to point out that, “the events are paid for by private donors”? The institution seems to believe that if you admit to bribery it is not a crime — or even a sin. And, although the report does not break down the ratio of GOP-appointed to Democratic-appointed jurists nosing the trough, I will warrant the conservative judges are usually the ones with the overflowing plates.
As the piece says, GMU named its law school after corporate America's favorite Justice, Antonin Scalia. Who also happens to be a Saint to conservative America.
Are we stuck with venality on the bench? Probably. As hard as it is to imagine impeaching a single judge, it is exponentially less likely that a constitutional amendment to limit judicial terms or relax the procedures to remove a judge will pass.
However, when Biden wins re-election, he should use his last term of public service to expand the Supreme Court, assuming the Democrats also hold onto the Senate. And if 2025 sees a GOP Senate installed, the Democrats should leave it all on the field to win the Upper House back in a more favorable year — during the 2026 elections.
The Supreme Court is running interference for Trump. It would satisfy justice, promote democracy, and feel damn good, if fresh blood diluted the poison that is killing America’s justice system.