-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Partisan1 divide drives Senate hearing on Supreme2 Court ethics3
Bitter partisan debates between Democrats5 and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary panel fueled a hearing on Supreme Court ethics Tuesday.
While members heard testimony6 from a variety of witnesses ranging from judicial7 ethics experts to a former attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, the lawmakers used their questioning to reinforce their own arguments. Democrats argued in favor of ethical8 guidelines that the Supreme Court must follow while Republicans countered that the current push to enforce ethics is because liberals aren't pleased with the recent decisions of a conservative leaning Supreme Court.
Absent from Tuesday's hearing are the central players in the current drama over high court ethics — no member of the court testified.
Chief Justice John Roberts last week declined the committee's invitation to testify, citing "separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving Judicial independence." Rather, he released a short letter to that effect, accompanied by a joint9 statement from all nine current justices reaffirming, apparently10 for the first time publicly, their voluntary adherence11 to the code of conduct that applies to lower federal court judges.
At the same time, however, the nine essentially12 insisted that because they are the Supreme Court, and thus different from other courts, they must remain ultimately independent from congressional oversight13 or mandatory14 rules. And, they cited a variety of their exceptions to the rules followed by lower court judges.
Republican senators speaking at the hearing on Tuesday said that while they are concerned about Supreme Court ethics, the current efforts by the Democratic-led Senate to force the court to abide15 by an ethics code is "selective outrage16" to destroy a conservative court. Six of the nine justices currently serving on the Supreme Court were nominated by a Republican president, including three by former President Donald Trump17.
"Today's hearing is an excuse to sling18 more mud at an institution that some – not all – some Democrats don't like because they can't control it 100% of the time," Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said. "Until they get the outcome they want in every case I fear they are going to continue to slander19 it in an effort to take control of it. And I pray to God I am wrong."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., rejected that assessment20 saying that he wrote the chief justice more than a decade ago, urging the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct.
"The Supreme Court could step up and fix this themselves. For years, they have refused. And because the court will not act, Congress must," Durbin said at the hearing on Tuesday.
The witnesses, chosen by Democrats and Republicans on the panel, found common ground when discussing whether the appearance of a conflict of interest can undermine public confidence in the impartiality21 of judges.
Jeremy Fogel, a former U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California, said that a code of conduct, which applies to U.S. district and circuit courts, discourages even the appearance of a conflict of interest because people affected22 by a judge's decision would "suspect that it's not a fair decision."
Michael Mukasey, a former U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York and attorney general under former President George W. Bush, agreed with Fogel's assessment, even when it comes to Supreme Court justices, adding that anyone who makes allegations against a judge needs to provide context to the alleged23 impropriety.
"I think if you allege24, in particular as to a particular Supreme Court Justice, that there is an appearance of a conflict or an appearance of impropriety, you have some obligation to articulate what it is," Mukasey said.
A stream of disclosures about the justices
Even as Roberts' letter to Durbin was released last week, news reports continued to disclose more new information about the conduct of some justices — conduct that ranged from flat-out defiance25 of financial disclosure rules, to allegations that some court critics imply are shady, and others see as perfectly26 proper.
Ethics experts continue to see the behavior of Justice Clarence Thomas as the most problematic on several fronts. Most recently, ProPublica disclosed that Republican megadonor Harlan Crow had for decades treated Thomas and his wife to free jet travel, yacht trips and other lavish27 vacations at which Thomas often intermingled with corporate28 leaders and political operators. Most importantly, Thomas did not disclose any of this on his financial disclosure forms, not did he disclose that Crow had purchased three properties in Georgia from Thomas, including one in which Thomas' mother lives.
Thomas ultimately blamed bad advice for these omissions29. In a written statement he said that he had been advised by colleagues and others when he first came on the court that gifts from personal friends did not have to be disclosed. And he pledged to disclose them in the future.
Other information followed about other justices, though not in the same league as the Thomas revelations.
Last week, Politico reported that Justice Neil Gorsuch didn't disclose the identity of the person who bought a $1.8 million property from him in Colorado. Gorsuch reported the transaction but not the identity of buyer, who turned out to be the head of a law firm that routinely has multiple cases before the Supreme Court.
This past weekend, Business Insider reported that Chief Justice John Roberts' wife, Jane, made more than $10 million over a period of seven years as a headhunter recruiting and placing lawyers in law firms.
And on Sunday, The New York Times devoted31 a two-page spread to an account of how the Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University upped its national ratings, in part by luring32 four conservative justices — Gorsuch, Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — to teach at the Northern Virginia campus and during summers at flossy European tourist meccas, for which they were all paid.
Nothing to see here?
The Times story, like some of the others, is indicative of the problem facing the court. Nothing disclosed in the story is illegal or improper33 under the code of conduct, though University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost concedes that she finds the paid summer gigs are "somewhat troubling," in their appearance. But at the same time, she notes that under the code of conduct, judges are expressly encouraged to teach and engage with academia and other in the community writ30 large. The question, she asks, is why it has to be at a beautiful and sometimes lavish European site.
As for the story about the chief justice's wife's employment as a legal recruiter, Frost, and NYU ethics professor Stephen Gillers say Jane Roberts did "nothing wrong." The code of conduct explicitly34 allows spouses35 to have separate and sometimes very profitable employment. And just because Ms. Roberts places people in law firms, even firms that have business before the Supreme Court, that does not amount to a conflict of interest.
As Frost observes, the appellate bar is a relatively36 small and "very clubby" group of people. Indeed, Supreme Court law clerks often maintain lifetime relationships with the justices for whom they clerked. Though they are forbidden to practice before the court for two years after leaving their clerkship, many of them become frequent advocates before the court after that, and on very rare occasion, a justice may slip up and call the counsel at the lectern by his or her first name. And yet, it is also worth noting that regular Supreme Court advocates can cite you chapter and verse of the times they lost the vote of a one-time boss, or won a vote unexpectedly.
Eroding37 public trust in the court
Which brings us to the current state of affairs. It is not any one of the recent disclosures that has sent the court's reputation into something of a tailspin. It is the cumulative38 effect — from the Thomas revelations, which ethics experts think is quite distinct--to the sum total of all the other stuff. What's more, until there is some basic change, the press will continue to treat the court in just the way it treats the other branches of government. That said, at least the other branches have rules that they agree they are supposed to abide by, without exception.
In the aftermath of the unprecedented39 leak in the abortion40 case, the failure to find who did it, and an increasing drumbeat of stories about the justices' outside activities and financial disclosures or failures to disclose, the court still seems wedded41 to the position it has always taken in recent years: Nothing is broken. We are doing our best. When we make mistakes, we can amend42 our financial disclosure forms and we do.
University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck argues that "the media is serving as a de facto inspector43 general. And when justices are amending44 their prior financial disclosure statements in response to these media reports, it's hard to just wave our hands and say 'there's nothing to see here.'"
After years of defending Supreme Court ethics, specialists in the field tend to have less tolerance45 these days. For instance, the court argues that it's different from the lower courts because if one of its members recuses from a case, there could be a 4-to-4 tie, whereas in the lower courts, a different judge can easily be substituted.
The case for a code of conduct
NYU's Gillers finds that excuse laughable. After all, he notes, the Republican Senate blocked confirmation46 of President Obama's nominee47 to the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, leaving the court with just eight justices for almost a year, "and the sky didn't fall."
He maintains that, using the current code of conduct for U.S. judges as a guide, the high court "in half a day" could write a code for the justices that recognizes the court's unique role. Yes, he agrees, there may be a 4-4 tie on rare occasions, but that is "much less harmful than the harm from the absence of a code of conduct for the court."
And he says, the judicial conference, which sets out the rules for all judges on financial disclosures has to do a better job of explaining when gifts and personal hospitality need to be disclosed or need not be disclosed. The current debate, he contends, is focused on disclosure of hospitality but "the greater problem is that there is no dollar limit on the value of personal hospitality, thus allowing a billionaire host to bestow48 on a justice" or any federal judge gifts without limit.
Gabe Roth of the court watchdog group Fix the Court has long pushed for a law requiring the justices to write their own code of conduct, and there are several such proposals in the Senate and House right now, including one with a lead Republican cosponsor, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. But with the filibuster49 in the Senate and the House in Republican hands, there is little likelihood that any of these proposals will pass.
Roth notes that in the months after Justice Abe Fortas resigned over an outside income scandal in 1969, the other justices filed reports on outside income and gifts. In contrast, Roth says, today the justice have "offered no such equivalent fix." Justice Thomas, he added, has "time and again failed to file accurate disclosure reports — concerning his wife's jobs, a missing real estate transaction and missing reimbursements50. These are violations51 of the Ethics in Government Act, and simply asking for an amendment52 for the umpteenth53 time doesn't cut it."
收听单词发音 |
1
partisan
|
|
| adj.党派性的；游击队的；n.游击队员；党徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
ethics
|
|
| n.伦理学；伦理观，道德标准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
transcript
|
|
| n.抄本，誊本，副本，肄业证书 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
democrats
|
|
| n.民主主义者，民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
judicial
|
|
| adj.司法的，法庭的，审判的，明断的，公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
ethical
|
|
| adj.伦理的，道德的，合乎道德的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
joint
|
|
| adj.联合的，共同的；n.关节，接合处；v.连接，贴合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
adherence
|
|
| n.信奉，依附，坚持，固着 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
oversight
|
|
| n.勘漏，失察，疏忽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
mandatory
|
|
| adj.命令的；强制的；义务的；n.受托者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
abide
|
|
| vi.遵守；坚持；vt.忍受 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
outrage
|
|
| n.暴行，侮辱，愤怒；vt.凌辱，激怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
trump
|
|
| n.王牌，法宝；v.打出王牌，吹喇叭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
sling
|
|
| vt.扔；悬挂；n.挂带；吊索，吊兜；弹弓 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
slander
|
|
| n./v.诽谤，污蔑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
assessment
|
|
| n.评价；评估；对财产的估价，被估定的金额 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
impartiality
|
|
| n. 公平, 无私, 不偏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
allege
|
|
| vt.宣称，申述，主张，断言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
defiance
|
|
| n.挑战，挑衅，蔑视，违抗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
lavish
|
|
| adj.无节制的；浪费的；vt.慷慨地给予，挥霍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
corporate
|
|
| adj.共同的，全体的；公司的，企业的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
omissions
|
|
| n.省略( omission的名词复数 )；删节；遗漏；略去或漏掉的事（或人） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
writ
|
|
| n.命令状，书面命令 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
luring
|
|
| 吸引，引诱（lure的现在分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
improper
|
|
| adj.不适当的，不合适的，不正确的，不合礼仪的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
explicitly
|
|
| ad.明确地，显然地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
spouses
|
|
| n.配偶，夫或妻( spouse的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
relatively
|
|
| adv.比较...地，相对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
eroding
|
|
| 侵蚀，腐蚀( erode的现在分词 )； 逐渐毁坏，削弱，损害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
cumulative
|
|
| adj.累积的，渐增的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
unprecedented
|
|
| adj.无前例的，新奇的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
abortion
|
|
| n.流产，堕胎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
wedded
|
|
| adj.正式结婚的；渴望…的，执著于…的v.嫁，娶，（与…）结婚( wed的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
amend
|
|
| vt.修改，修订，改进；n.[pl.]赔罪，赔偿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
inspector
|
|
| n.检查员，监察员，视察员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
amending
|
|
| 改良，修改，修订( amend的现在分词 )； 改良，修改，修订( amend的第三人称单数 )( amends的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
tolerance
|
|
| n.宽容；容忍，忍受；耐药力；公差 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
confirmation
|
|
| n.证实，确认，批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
nominee
|
|
| n.被提名者；被任命者；被推荐者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
bestow
|
|
| v.把…赠与，把…授予；花费 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
filibuster
|
|
| n.妨碍议事，阻挠；v.阻挠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
reimbursements
|
|
| n.偿还( reimbursement的名词复数 )；退款；补偿；赔偿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
violations
|
|
| 违反( violation的名词复数 )； 冒犯； 违反（行为、事例）； 强奸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
amendment
|
|
| n.改正，修正，改善，修正案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
umpteenth
|
|
| adj.第无数次（个）的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
购买
在百度中搜索