Blog de Dunlap: Missing one big thing

Danielle,

This month, the U.S. Supreme Court went back into session. They're taking on cases that challenge whether or not the CFPB is constitutional (it is) and whether abusers with domestic violence restraining orders can possess guns — just to name a few.

The justices are still missing one big thing as they kick off this new term: a binding code of ethics.

Yep — they're the only federal judges who don't have to follow an enforceable code of conduct. And they're the ones with the most power to touch people's lives. That's bad enough, but when it comes to ethics, there are other holes we've got to plug throughout our whole federal judiciary.

The American people should be confident that federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, are held to the highest ethical standards and free from conflicts of interest.

When someone gets their day in court, they shouldn't have to wonder whether the judge presiding over their case is making decisions based on their stock portfolio — or a spouse's business interests — instead of the rule of law.

And the principle of Equal Justice Under Law should mean, well, Equal Justice Under Law — not special secret access for billionaires who can go yachting with Supreme Court justices and gift them with lavish (and undisclosed) vacations.

I've got a bill — the Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act — to overhaul the whole judicial ethics system and restore public confidence in our courts. But it's going to take a tough fight to get this done.

Add your name to support my Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act, and let's fight side by side to pass it, Danielle.

ADD YOUR NAME

Here are some big pieces of what the bill would accomplish:

Require Supreme Court justices to follow a binding Code of Conduct
Strengthen restrictions on judicial gifts and privately funded travel
Ban judges from owning individual stocks and securities, commercial real estate, trusts, and private companies (can you believe that's not the law already?)
Overhaul the broken recusal process, so Supreme Court justices would have to publicly respond — and justify their decision — if a litigant in a case asks the justice to recuse themselves

If we fight side by side, we can prevent conflicts of interest in our federal judiciary. We can make judges and justices follow appropriately high standards for ethical conduct. And I won't stop there — I've got a plan to root corruption out of Washington, wherever it rears its head.

But I can't do it alone. Danielle, add your name to say you're in this fight.

Thanks for being a part of this,

Elizabeth