WASHINGTON - JULY 13 : US Supreme Court Nomimee hearing Sonia Sotomayor July 13, 2009 in Washington, DC

By SNN.BZ Staff

Justice Clarence Thomas has been under scrutiny for accepting gifts, luxury vacations, his grandson’s tuition and a free home for his mother from wealthy donors without disclosing any of it. He only disclosed what investigators were able to discover, other than that – he didn’t say a word.

The Supreme Court recently adopted a code of ethics, the first in its history, to address such issues. However, critics have pointed out that the code lacks any way to enforce ethical conduct restrictions, reprimands or even admonishments of any kind (and certainly no punishment), therefore it is basically useless.

As for Justice Sotomayor, her taxpayer-funded clerks and administrative staff organize events to sell her books, for which she has made $3.7 million since joining the court in 2009. It may not be illegal for either of these two justices to behave the way they have but it certainly is unethical.

Sotomayor’s staff members pushed hard to increase her book sales by calling schools and libraries saying they were calling from Sotomayor’s office (using her authority) in order to boost her book sales. 

The Supreme Court flimsily defended Sotomayor, stating that her staff merely “recommends” the number of books an organization should order based on the size of the audience so as not to disappoint attendees who may anticipate books being available at an event. Did you ever hear a lamer crock of crap?

It is important to note that the Supreme Court (themselves of course) has not found either of these actions to be illegal. However, the public has raised concerns about the ethical implications of such actions.

The Supreme Court’s recent adoption of a code of ethics is a step in the right direction to address unethical practices and corruption concerns. However, if this new “Code of Ethics” cannot be enforced – then even mentioning the lack of ethics is a fraud, and the self-serving corruption will continue because the justices have no incentive to end the corruption.

And we have to stop and ask ourselves, “Are we noticing these clear and open-faced breaches of ethics? Many other justices took advantage of gifts and favors corporations offered them when they were aware that the justices were ruling on matters that affected their businesses or themselves directly.

How can it be that the mainstream media is recognizing the unethical behaviors of these two justices that both happen to be Justices of color? Can they state unequivocally that white justices have not done the same or worse?

NOTE: The link to the book above does not benefit SyndicatedNews or its owners. We cannot publish an article about a matter and then use it to earn income. Upon examination, it becomes clear that the links we use are “default” links that benefit no one other than Amazon itself.