SCOTUS ethics watch, part 2; and Titanic-style reforms needed
Red Meat For Mushy Moderates
So we have another case of questionable ethics at the United States Supreme Court, as reported yet again by Pro Publica. As readers of this newsletter are aware, the Samuel Alito report follows another Pro Publica investigation into Justice Clarence Thomas’ acceptance of gifts from Texas billionaire Harlan Crow.
Click here to read the Pro Publica piece and here for a pretty good summary from the AP if you don’t have the patience or time to wade through the 4,500-word behemoth. In essence, Alito failed to disclose a luxury flight and fishing trip he took in 2008 with hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, and later did not recuse himself from hearing cases connected to Singer.
As a journalist, the most interesting aspect of this incident is not the content of the Pro Publica piece itself but the backlash to it and the preemptive actions Alito took before Pro Publica published its investigation.
After receiving a list of questions from Pro Publica (to which he did not respond), Alito wrote an op-ed (free link) in the Wall Street Journal rebutting the news outlet’s story before it even dropped. Alito insisted the trip did not meet the threshold for disclosure and that he wasn’t even aware that Singer was connected to any of the cases he heard.
So the justice accomplished two things: he attempted to deconstruct the story in advance and he stole Pro Publica’s thunder. Some news organizations have dubbed Alito’s response a “prebuttal.” And yes, the shoe fits.
To no one’s surprise, the conservative WSJ editorial board also came to Alito’s defense, calling Pro Publica’s investigation a “fishing expedition” and an attempt to “to catch and fillet” Alito. In his own defense, Alito downplayed the trip and flight to Alaska, offering that his was a “seat that, as far as I am aware, would have otherwise been vacant.” To which I responded on Twitter:
As I wrote earlier, Congress has strict limits on accepting gifts, and so do federal employees and judges in other federal courts. But the highest court in the land has nothing more than reporting requirements for its justices. This has got to end.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why people charged with the public trust in very high places accept free vacations from rich people, even if it’s legal. When such a prize is offered, the first thought that should cross a Supreme Court justice’s mind is: “Maybe this person wants something from me down the road.”
Journalists can be similarly compromised. We should not accept gifts of any kind from people we cover or might cover. I recall my late mentor Robert Estabrook, the former editorial page editor and chief diplomatic correspondent of the Washington Post, telling me emphatically, “Never accept more than a cup of coffee from a source.” Nothing but wisdom came from Bob’s pen and mouth. I miss his friendship and insights every day.
From the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics:
Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.
Shouldn’t the same be said of judges in the highest court in the land?
Titan disaster: next steps
Just before I was going to send this newsletter out to my subscribers, I learned that all five people aboard the submersible known as the Titan are now presumed dead after a debris field was discovered about 1,500 feet away from the Titanic’s bow deep in the North Atlantic. The assumption is that the submersible could not withstand the intense pressure under 2.5 miles of sea water and suffered a “catastrophic implosion.”
Since the incident took place in international waters, it’s unclear exactly who had jurisdiction, though U.S. and Canadian military appeared to take the lead in the recovery effort. After the search, recovery of remains (if any) and investigation are completed, I expect the focus to shift to these sorts of high-end tourist vessels and the apparent lack of oversight.
According to the U.S. Naval Institute, submersibles such as OceanGate’s Titan “are not regulated. That means there is no governing body dictating what safety features the craft requires.” Obviously, this needs to change. Yet again, it’s unclear which governing body would have the authority. Perhaps the nation where these submersibles are manufactured would be responsible? In that case, OceanGate Inc. is located in Everett, Washington.
Ironically, when the Titanic itself sank in 1912, stricter international standards and maritime safety measures were instituted. According to the CBC:
Is it too much to ask that the world be as smart as it was 111 years ago?
Wouldn’t it be great if the airlines all adopted the Alito philosophy of
“If the seat is empty,
Let us tempt thee…
With a freebie!!”