Trojan Horse Against SCOTUS

We must defend Justice Thomas. We must destroy Judge Merchan.

It is an understatement at this point to recognize that all of America’s institutions have fallen to liberalism. However, one major institution stands alone against this worldview: the Supreme Court of the United States. The court, comprised of a solidly “originalist” majority (Justices Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barret, Gorsuch, and sometimes Chief Justice Roberts), has stood as a substantial bulwark against the advances of the left. Most obviously was the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson — ending abortion protections at the federal level.

The left is particularly bothered that they have been unable to subvert this institution, owing to the fact, no matter unfortunate it is, that most of conservative's largest victories in recent years have come from the Supreme Court, not Congress. Think abortion, again, and Second Amendment rights.

In their latest attempt to destroy the credibility of the court (efforts to “pack the court” have largely stalled), House and Senate Democrats introduced bills looking to institute an ethics office within the court, directing the chief justice to establish guidance for financial disclosure regulations, acceptance of gifts, political “comments,” conflicts of interest, recusal, and leaks of court documents. These measures are of course aimed at punishing and controlling conservative supreme court justices. Does anyone really believe adding another ethics bureaucrat to the government would lead to the just treatment of conservatives?

In the House bill, the new office would be headed by a chief ethics counsel, appointed by the chief justice, with a maximum of two six-year terms. Among the office’s responsibilities would be to, on a biannual basis, provide a “crash course” on judicial ethics, with the justices being required to attend. The office would also to submit a report on these courses to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

The bill goes on to mandate the creation of an “Office of Investigative Counsel,” headed by a chief investigative counsel. The office would investigate ethics complaints against Supreme Court justices. In doing so, it would have the authority to subpoena and compel witnesses to appear and testify, as well as produce evidence related to any investigation. By virtue of this alone, it would potentially allow justice’s sensitive information, financial reports, and spending habits to be used against them politically — even if no ethics rules were broken. In the eyes of the left, the fact that an investigation is taking place is enough to imply impropriety.

Following its investigation, the office is to submit to the chief justice a report containing its findings and recommendations; the report must contain in detail each violation of the Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court (another provision) committed by the justice subject to investigation, and substantive and actionable recommendations from the office, including but not limited to recusal, divestment, and neutralization of conflicts of interest.

Any person could, at least, find the general language of the bill reasonable in the abstract. However, the author and its co-sponsors introduce several sleights of hand when they define keywords, such as “gifts” as “any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan forbearance or any item having monetary value.” This is just one example. The word “any” here is overly broad and could be taken to mean almost anything — and will almost certainly be abused by a liberal investigative counsel. Let’s not forget, these provisions will only be used against conservative justices.

Furthermore, the chief justice will have the power to decide whether or not to release the report to the public. This is of course another trap — a trojan house, you might say. If the chief justice releases the report, no matter how small the alleged violation, it will damage the integrity of the conservative justice and the court. If he does not release it, he will of course be accused of being complicit in a coverup.

It would be remiss to assert that the court, or the justice system at large, is free from any kind of scrutiny. The court, like every other branch of government, is a political institution. If the Supreme Court were controlled by liberal justices waging war on conservatives, like every other branch of government, this may be a different case entirely.

Take Judge Merchan in President Trump’s New York Trial: Merchan, with a noted history of corruption and recently weaponizing his court on behalf of the left and the federal government, should be removed from office. The exception proves the rule. We must defend Justice Thomas. We must destroy Judge Merchan.

If this bill is enacted, Supreme Court justices will be vulnerable to subpoenas if they refuse to comply with the investigative counsel and could be found in contempt of court. From a purely reactionary standpoint, there is no justification for conservatives to support this bill, even though it may be tempting for some weak-willed legislators. The court has delivered us numerous victories and there are no serious implications as to the character of conservative justices, no matter how badly the left hates Justice Thomas. The left’s attacks on judicial immunity are clear and this bill must be opposed.

---

If you enjoyed this article, please consider becoming a patron of our publication! To celebrate our one-year anniversary, we are pleased to offer 50% off access to our patron-exclusive content. Your enthusiasm and support means a lot to all of us at The American Postliberal — and we promise we’ll work hard for your investment in our project.