Is the U.S. Supreme Court Corrupt?

The phrase "No one is above the law" has permeated our system of government for 248 years. It is a foundational principle of the U.S. legal and governmental system, emphasizing that everyone is subject to the law regardless of status. However, the newly constituted conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has quashed that notion for good.

The conservative majority on the Court has begun to shift the apex court into a political ideology.? ?The Court's ideological composition and decisions continue to shape legal and political landscapes. The U.S. Supreme Court's decisions can significantly influence public perception. Recent rulings, the Court's composition, and broader political and social contexts all play a role.

In recent years, some Americans have voiced concerns that the Court is becoming increasingly ideological and potentially corrupt. This unease is reflected in polls, with a Gallup survey in 2022 revealing that only 25% of Americans had confidence in the Court, the lowest level in the poll's history. Similarly, a Pew Research Center survey found that most Americans believe the Court should not base its rulings on politics.

For over twenty years, Justice Clarence Thomas has received grafts and luxury trips from a Republican mega-billion-dollar donor, Harlan Crow. Crow's financial support extended to Thomas' wife, Ginni, who received hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund her – a now-defunct conservative group. Crow even purchased Thomas' family home and allowed his mother to live there rent-free; he paid hundreds of thousands on tuition for Thomas, grandnephew. Thomas' wife, Ginni, was also involved in an attempt to overturn a legitimate vote count to confirm the president of the United States, further compromising the Court's integrity. These actions raise serious ethical concerns.

Justice Samuel Alito is an activist justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In an unprecedented move for any justice at the time, Alito confronted President Obama in a State-of-the-Union address, vividly expressing his disagreement with Obama's speech. Like Thomas, Samuel Alito reportedly received many luxury trips and consideration from mega-donors.

Alito's wife, Martha-Ann, displayed an upside-down position of the American flag, indicating support for Trump and the January 6th insurrectionists at the Capitol. These circumstances are inconsistent with the roles of justices in the land's highest Court. Yet, both justices declined to recuse themselves when deciding on the same cases in which their spouses had expressed preference or actively participated. This type of practice by judges of the Supreme Court is customary in the judiciary of third-world countries. However, it is shocking that it also exists in the USA.

The U.S. Supreme Court, led by a conservative majority, has thrown Donald Trump a lifeline. Chief Justice John Roberts, announcing that no one is above the law, contradicted that notion by placing former President Trump or any future president above the law, ruling that a sitting president could commit a crime under the cloak of office and not be subject to prosecution upon leaving office. ??So, a sitting president could take a bribe or ask the Justice Department to constitute a plank of fake electors or prosecute an opponent and be immune from prosecution. This ruling is corrupt and dangerous in a democratic society.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on federal anti-bribery laws aimed to distinguish between bribery and gratuities, particularly in cases involving state and local officials, did nothing to curb corruption and may even obscure the real issues, including potential corruption within the highest levels of the judiciary.

In the case involving James Snyder, while he was the mayor of Portage, Indiana, the city contracted with a local truck company to purchase garbage trucks valued at $1.125 million. Several months after awarding the contract, Snyder solicited and accepted $13,000 from the truck company's owners. The Supreme Court's decision clarified that accepting such gratuities for acts already completed does not violate federal anti-bribery laws, emphasizing the distinction between bribery and gratuities.

One may argue that the Apex Court's decision, taken by conservative justices in this case, was aimed at justifying the grafts of Thomas and Alito. The operative word is "solicited," which indicates it was not a gratuity in the real sense of it. Snyder went out to solicit the money after awarding the contract. As it is in bribery, the mayor's action involved a quid pro quo in a reverse form. Thus, it could have been a gratuity if the truck company owners had given the money independently without being solicited.

This decision by the Supreme Court, taken solely by conservative justices, has compromised the ethical standards of government officials in their interactions with the public. In a previous decision, the conservative justices reversed Roe v. Wade, a decision of an earlier Court that had lived with us for more than fifty years. The U.S. Supreme Court, led by conservative-appointed justices who were not democratically elected, has wielded its judicial power to shape our society through reinterpretations without direct accountability to the electorate. Their decisions can lead to significant societal changes without direct accountability to the voters, highlighting the judiciary's considerable role in shaping policy and legal standards in the United States.

This dynamic situation raises ongoing debates about the balance of power and the role of judicial interpretation in a democratic society. Perhaps, it is time to consider limiting the justices' time in court or increasing the number of justices in the apex court.

?What do you think?

Please visit our website: www.moderatevoices.org

?

Nicholas A. Owoyemi

President & CEO (Author)

Moderate Voices of America

30 Wall Street, 8th Floor

New York, New York 10005

212 406-1958

[email protected]

www.moderatevoices.org???