Few Supreme Court Justices have tested the Court's ethical limits like Justice Clarence Thomas, says this week's GZERO World guest, Yale Law School legal expert Emily Bazelon. And that's because, for centuries, Justices have been reluctant to test the boundaries of an ethical system that has few limits. "Federal judges and lower courts are subject to ethical codes," Bazelon explains, "but not the Supreme Court justices themselves."
As a result, the Court has experienced some of its lowest public approval ratings in history, this past year. Some of that discontent, of course, can be traced to the Court's rightward swing under its conservative supermajority. But for a branch of the government that relies heavily on public trust to ensure that its rulings are respected and carried out, the decline in popular support is cause for concern.
"People do not have faith that this is a non-political institution, and that's what courts are supposed to be, at least in theory. They're supposed to be doing something called law, that's separate from politics."
Tune into GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television stations nationwide. Check local listings.
For more on the Supreme Court and what to expect from anticipated rulings this year, watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: "Who polices the Supreme Court?"
- Who polices the Supreme Court? ›
- Senators want ethics rules for SCOTUS ›
- Bharara: Clarence Thomas' donor trips may not be illegal, but not a good look ›
- Who cares if the Supreme Court justices like each other? - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Explains: Does it matter if Americans don't trust the Supreme Court? - GZERO Media ›
- The major Supreme Court decisions to watch for in June - GZERO Media ›
- The US Supreme Court, less trusted than ever, votes on major cases in June: Emily Bazelon on what to expect - GZERO Media ›
- US election disinformation: How myths like non-citizen voting erode public trust - GZERO Media ›