[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) spoke at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing today on, “Supreme Court Ethics Reform.” The hearing followed recent reports raising concerns about the Court’s ethical standards, including Justice Clarence Thomas’ failure to disclose luxury gifts, travel, and a real estate deal with Republican megadonor Harlan Crow.

“The American public want action. The American public is disgusted. They are disgusted with what they see in public life as the degrading of standards and conduct that would never be tolerated in their own workplaces and in their own private lives,” said Blumenthal. “A lot of the American public are increasingly seeing the justices as politicians in robes.”

Blumenthal called for action to address these ethical shortcomings, saying, “I think we need a proper investigation. It should be done by the Department of Justice because there are allegations of criminal wrongdoing here, violations by Justice Thomas of the disclosure of laws, incomplete, inaccurate reporting as well as nondisclosure.”

Blumenthal said Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ refusal to testify before the committee was, “judicial malpractice,” and a, “disservice to the courts,” and “to his colleagues.” Blumenthal also asked Jeremy Fogel, Executive Director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute and a former U.S. District Judge, about efforts he thought would strengthen the Court’s ethical standards.

“I think it would be good for public confidence, very good for public confidence and for the confidence of the judicial rank and file you were talking about, if the court were more assertive in standing for ethical compliance,” said Fogel.  

A transcript is available below.

U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal: Thanks Chairman Durbin and thank you to the witnesses for being with us today. You know, as I listened to this exchange, the fact of the matter is, the American public want action. The American public is disgusted. They are disgusted with what they see in public life as the degrading of standards and conduct that would never be tolerated in their own workplaces and in their own private lives. And they want us to provide that action.

The public confidence in the United States Supreme Court has plummeted. We can go back and forth as to what the cause is, but a lot of the American public are increasingly seeing the justices as politicians in robes. And now, after the revelation about Justice Thomas, as corrupt politicians in robes. They want an investigation, they want the truth.

And the ones who are victims here are not only the American public, they are the judges themselves at the lower courts. Year in and year out, federal district court judges, appellate court judges are filling out those forms rigorously, accurately. And now, the nation's highest court is seeming to put itself higher than the law. And that is unfair to the other judges who are playing by the rules.

And in fact, it is tarring the entire judiciary – undermining that branch of government that has no armies, no police. All it has is its legitimacy. If you undermine that legitimacy, confidence, and trust of the American people, there is nothing left of our judiciary. And the greatest democracy in the history of the world, protected by judges who are supposed to be independent and impartial, is going to suffer irreparably.

That is why I think we need a proper investigation. It should be done by the Department of Justice because there are allegations of criminal wrongdoing here, violations by Justice Thomas of the disclosure of laws, incomplete, inaccurate reporting as well as nondisclosure. And in the absence of an investigation by the Department of Justice, we have a role to play in Congress.

But the judges have a role to play, too, in protecting themselves. And what Chief Justice Roberts has done in refusing to come before this committee is judicial malpractice. It is a disservice to the courts, to his colleagues who sit there every day – sometimes in danger, physically – and always under the microscope of public scrutiny. So I think judges ought to be angry about this crisis of legitimacy that is enveloping the Supreme Court because it affects our entire judiciary. I want to ask Mr. Fogel, in your experience, although you are a retired judge, my view is judges should be angry and fearful. Do you agree?

Jeremy Fogel: Let me answer your question this way, Senator. First of all, it is true. I certainly have a lot of respect for Chief Justice Roberts. He was a great guy to work with for the seven years that I worked with him and I think his intentions are good.

I think the rank and file judges to whom you alluded earlier have often felt that they would like the court to be a little more robust in asserting itself in this area of ethics and transparency. That it has been not forthcoming in some ways that I think it could be. I am not saying -- I am not here to be partisan, I’m not going to get into that debate, but I think it would be good for public confidence, very good for public confidence and for the confidence of the judicial rank and file you were talking about, if the court were more assertive in standing for ethical compliance.

I think this is on the court. I think the court can do it. They have got some really smart people. There are ways that they can do it that don’t compromise decisional independence or institutional Independence. And I think some judges are frustrated that that has not happened.

Blumenthal: I agree. I've talked to a number of judges who are more than frustrated. They are livid. And I believe their views reflect a growing feeling among the judiciary. All I can say is I urge those judges to stand up and speak out, because they can help protect the judiciary as an institution. Thank you Mr. Chairman.