-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
How questions about Justice Thomas' ethics1 could harm the Supreme2 Court's reputation
For years, as members of Congress and people in the executive branch suffered through embarrassing headlines about ethics lapses4, the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to occupy something of a moral high ground. But a bombshell report from ProPublica this month may have changed that. Reporters with ProPublica documented a long relationship between Thomas and Republican donor5 Harlan Crow, in which the billionaire showered Thomas and his wife with luxury vacations for more than 20 years.
The Senate Judiciary Committee - which is controlled by Democrats6 - plans to hold a hearing on the Supreme Court's ethical7 standards, and may even call Justice Thomas to appear. After a meeting of Democrats on the committee Monday night, Committee member Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn), who has been searing in his criticism of Justice Thomas, said he hoped Justice Thomas would appear voluntarily.
The headlines about Justice Thomas keep coming. This week, the Washington Post reported that Thomas continued to claim annual rental8 income from a real estate firm that ceased to exist in 2006.
"Taken together with other errors and omissions9 on his financial disclosure forms over the years, it's part of a pattern that has raised questions about how seriously he views his responsibility to accurately10 report details of his finances to the public," Post reporter Emma Brown told NPR's Leila Fadel on Morning Edition.
Thomas has not responded to the Post report on the real estate earnings11. He defended the non-disclosure of Crow's gifts in a statement, saying he'd been advised that gifts from a friend who had no business before the court were not reportable.
But some ethics lawyers reject that. NPR's Michel Martin spoke12 to two experts: Virginia Canter, chief ethics counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
It's our nation's highest court. And the fact that he was accepting – repeatedly – private plane trips, yacht cruises, luxury resort vacations, without disclosing them, indicates he was in violation13 of the Ethics in Government Act, which was an act passed by Congress after Watergate.
The only exception for reporting gifts from friends is something called the personal hospitality exception, and it only applies to food, lodging14 and entertainment. It does not at all apply to transportation. They can only be accepted from someone with whom he had a personal relationship, and that it was a reciprocal relationship. In other words, as a friend, I invite you over to dinner and you invite me over to dinner. That's reciprocity. But there's no way Justice Thomas and his wife could ever afford these types of gifts, let alone reciprocate15 them. The fact that they met after he took office completely undermines the argument that it was a pre-existing personal relationship.
On the lower court, federal judges are subject to a misconduct review that would be carried out through a very detailed16 process. However, there's no similar type of accountability at this time for any member of the Supreme Court, which is why there has been such a strong push by members of Congress for the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct that would establish a framework for addressing and investigating misconduct.
Julian Zelizer
There's different modes of enforcement. Obviously, the court could police itself. There could be some kind of internal mechanism17 of investigation18, which can happen already. And ideally, that is the best way for the court to handle this. But the other avenue would be legislating19 this problem. I don't know what kind of mechanism you can set up, but it would be externally put into place rather than just depending on the Chief Justice to do this on their own.
The stories that now surround Justice Thomas are bringing immense questions, not just about him, but about how the Court operates. How do we police what justices do and cannot do, and can we have confidence that justices in the highest court of the land are making decisions based on their interpretation20 of the law rather than their political preferences? I think we're at one of these important, pivotal turning points when the Court has to decide what it's going to do, if anything. And if the court isn't going to do something, will Congress perhaps step in?
I think the American people intuitively understand when officials are potentially engaged in corrupt21 activity. They have a visceral reaction to it, there is a line that cannot be crossed, and I think this is probably one of them. By accepting these gifts, the Justice has completely undermined the public's trust in the ability of the court to faithfully and impartially22 discharge their obligations, to apply equal justice under law. The problem here is you really can't put the genie23 back in the bottle. You can't just have him say, 'I'll go back and report these gifts.' I'm not sure how we restore the integrity of the court after these events have occurred.
Julian Zelizer
We've had moments where the American public can look at behavior that's happened in the past, when it actually shakes some of the partisan24 status quo and leads to a push for some kind of reform. We just had passage, for example, of a reform of the Electoral College system. It was a moderate reform, but it was in the aftermath of what happened in 2020. And there's something about this story. It's so personal, it's so vivid. It could give some fuel to public support for institutional reforms. I think many Americans, including many independents, will understand this is not right for the Court, for the system. And that's how you can get a moment when you can break through an unwillingness25 to change how institutions work.
1 ethics | |
n.伦理学;伦理观,道德标准 | |
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 transcript | |
n.抄本,誊本,副本,肄业证书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 lapses | |
n.失误,过失( lapse的名词复数 );小毛病;行为失检;偏离正道v.退步( lapse的第三人称单数 );陷入;倒退;丧失 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 donor | |
n.捐献者;赠送人;(组织、器官等的)供体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 democrats | |
n.民主主义者,民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 ethical | |
adj.伦理的,道德的,合乎道德的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 rental | |
n.租赁,出租,出租业 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 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: |
|
|
10 accurately | |
adv.准确地,精确地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 earnings | |
n.工资收人;利润,利益,所得 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 spoke | |
n.(车轮的)辐条;轮辐;破坏某人的计划;阻挠某人的行动 v.讲,谈(speak的过去式);说;演说;从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 violation | |
n.违反(行为),违背(行为),侵犯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 lodging | |
n.寄宿,住所;(大学生的)校外宿舍 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 reciprocate | |
v.往复运动;互换;回报,酬答 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 detailed | |
adj.详细的,详尽的,极注意细节的,完全的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 mechanism | |
n.机械装置;机构,结构 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 investigation | |
n.调查,调查研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 legislating | |
v.立法,制定法律( legislate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 interpretation | |
n.解释,说明,描述;艺术处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 corrupt | |
v.贿赂,收买;adj.腐败的,贪污的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 impartially | |
adv.公平地,无私地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 genie | |
n.妖怪,神怪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 partisan | |
adj.党派性的;游击队的;n.游击队员;党徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 unwillingness | |
n. 不愿意,不情愿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|