Tuesday, July 11, 2023

Supreme Court justices receive luxury travel in exchange for university appearances


"Documents obtained by The Associated Press through public records requests reveal that some all-expenses-paid trips — to Italy, Iceland and Hawaii, among others — are light on classroom instruction, with ample time carved out for the justices' leisure." Justices of all political leanings have benefited.

Charlie Cooper

AP investigation finds many more Supreme Court ethics lapses


Justices have used their staff to promote their book sales. They have attended campus fundraising events where wealthy donors to the university -- some of whom later have business before the Court -- receive special access to the justices. The questionable practices are not limited by political leaning.

"Lower court federal judges are generally barred from engaging in fundraising, political activity and 'lending the prestige of judicial office' to advance a judge's own 'private interests,'" but the Supreme Court's ethics principles and disclosure practices are much less stringent than those applied to other judges, Congress, or the Executive branch.

"[T]he Supreme Court's definition of banned fundraising is so narrow -– simply an event that raises more than it costs or where guests are asked for donations -– that it does not account for soliciting contributors later while reminding them of the special access they were afforded."


Charlie Cooper
H: 410-578-8291
M: 410-624-6095

Sunday, July 2, 2023

Why the Supreme Court should be expanded


I wrote this LTE counter talk of "Court packing" whenever the topic of expanding the number of justices on SCOTUS is raised. There are many good reasons to expand, and it could be phased in over several presidential terms to counter "packing" charges.

Charlie Cooper

Saturday, July 1, 2023

Elena Kagan says SCOTUS student loan decision is unconstitutional


Kagan says that the Court's interpretation of a statute allowing the Department of Education to waive or modify student loan terms during a national emergency should have been left with the political branches that are more responsive to the electorate. She wrote:

"From the first page to the last, today's opinion departs from the demands of judicial restraint," .... "At the behest of a party that has suffered no injury, the majority decides a contested public policy issue properly belonging to the politically accountable branches and the people they represent.

"That is a major problem not just for governance, but for democracy too. Congress is of course a democratic institution; it responds, even if imperfectly, to the preferences of American voters. And agency officials, though not themselves elected, serve a President with the broadest of all political constituencies. But this Court? It is, by design, as detached as possible from the body politic. That is why the Court is supposed to stick to its business — to decide only cases and controversies, and to stay away from making this Nation's policy about subjects like student-loan relief....

"[The Court] exercises authority it does not have. It violates the Constitution."