首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨周二拒绝了在参议院司法委员会作证的邀请在一个关于最高法院道德的听证会上。
这个有影响力的委员会的主席迪克·德宾上周致信罗伯茨，邀请他或“你指定的另一名法官”在5月2日出席该委员会的听证会，“关于最高法院法官的道德规则以及对这些规则的潜在改革”
罗伯茨周二回答说，首席大法官的证词“极其罕见”，并指出这种情况只发生过两次:一次是在1921年，另一次是在1935年。
他还附上了一份由所有九名法官签署的关于法庭道德和实践的五页声明，罗伯茨说，尽管没有独立执行这些规则，但他们都遵守了这份声明。
罗伯茨应邀出席委员会会议是在ProPublica报告揭露了大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯和富有的共和党捐赠者哈兰·克罗之间的密切关系，包括托马斯和他的家人卖给克罗的房地产，以及克罗帮助或支付的托马斯的大量旅行。托马斯的披露报告中没有披露这些联系。
德宾在信中写道。，指出司法委员会上一次听取现任法官关于道德的意见是在2011年。
2023年2月7日，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨在华盛顿特区国会大厦向国会联席会议发表国情咨文
通过路透社，文件池
“自那以后，不断有消息披露，法官们没有达到对其他联邦法官以及公务员的道德标准。这些问题早在2011年就已经很明显了，而最高法院十年来未能解决这些问题导致了公众信任危机。现状已经不存在了，”德宾写道。
德宾上周表示，即使罗伯茨缺席，听证会仍将举行，而且没有讨论传唤罗伯茨。
加州参议员黛安娜·范斯坦在带状疱疹康复期间继续缺席，这意味着该委员会在民主党人和共和党人之间陷入僵局，而不是民主党人通常的一个席位多数，只有大多数成员可以投票批准传唤罗伯茨作证。尚不清楚是否有共和党人支持这一举措。
民主党人一直在竭力反对ProPublica报告。
“这超越了党派或党派，”众议员亚历山大·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯本月早些时候在推特上说。“这种程度的腐败令人震惊——几乎是漫画式的。托马斯必须被弹劾。”
与此同时，共和党人基本上支持托马斯。
“我对美国首席大法官处理这些法院内部问题完全有信心，”参议院共和党领袖米奇·麦康奈尔(Mitch McConnell)本周表示，他建议任何道德改革都应该留给最高法院来决定。
克劳一再坚持他与托马斯的关系不包括任何不当行为，他从未试图影响托马斯在法庭上的工作。
“我们从未询问过未决或下级法院的案件，托马斯大法官也从未讨论过，我们也从未试图在任何法律或政治问题上影响托马斯大法官。更广泛地说，我不知道我们的任何朋友曾经游说或试图在任何案件上影响托马斯大法官，我永远不会邀请任何我认为有任何意图这样做的人，”克罗在第一份ProPublica报告发表后的一份声明中说。
在一份声明中，托马斯说:“哈兰和凯西·克罗是我们最亲密的朋友，我们已经是超过25年的朋友了。作为朋友，在我们认识他们的四分之一世纪里，我们加入了他们的家庭旅行。在我任职法院的早期，我向我的同事和司法部门的其他人寻求指导，他们告诉我，这种来自与法院没有业务往来的亲密私人朋友的私人款待是不可报告的。我在任职期间一直努力遵循这一建议，并一直努力遵守披露准则。这些指导方针现在正在改变，因为负责整个联邦司法机构财务披露的司法会议委员会就在上个月宣布了新的指导方针。当然，我打算在未来遵循这一指导方针。”
Chief Justice Roberts declines invitation to testify about Supreme Court ethics
Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday declined an invitation to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committeeat a hearing about Supreme Court ethics.
Sen. Dick Durbin, chairman of the influential panel, sent a letter to Roberts last week inviting him or "another Justice whom you designate" to appear before the committee on May 2 for a hearing "regarding the ethical rules that govern the Justices of the Supreme Court and potential reforms to those rules."
Roberts replied on Tuesday that testimony by the chief justice is "exceedingly rare," noting it's only happened twice: once in 1921 and again in 1935.
He also attached a five-page statement on court ethics and practices signed by all nine justices, which Roberts said they all adhere to despite there being no independent enforcement of such rules.
The invitation for Roberts to appear before the committee came afterProPublica reportingrevealed close ties between Justice Clarence Thomas and wealthy GOP donor Harlan Crow, including real estate Thomas and his family sold to Crow and extensive travel by Thomas that Crow facilitated or paid for. Those connections were not revealed on Thomas' disclosure reports.
In his letter, Durbin, D-Ill., noted that the last time the Judiciary Committee heard from sitting justices on ethics was in 2011.
"Since then, there has been a steady stream of revelations regarding Justices falling short of the ethical standards expected of other federal judges and, indeed, of public servants generally. These problems were already apparent back in 2011, and the Court's decade-long failure to address them has contributed to a crisis of public confidence. The status quo is no longer tenable," Durbin wrote.
Durbin said last week the hearing would still take place even in Roberts' absence and that there hadn't been discussion of subpoenaing Roberts.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's continued absence as she recovers from shingles means the panel is deadlocked between Democrats and Republicans, rather than Democrats' normal one-seat majority, and only a majority of members could vote to approve a subpoena for Roberts' testimony. It's unclear if any Republicans would back such a move.
Democrats have been up in arms following theProPublica reports.
"This is beyond party or partisanship," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted earlier this month. "This degree of corruption is shocking -- almost cartoonish. Thomas must be impeached."
Republicans, meanwhile, have largely fallen in line behind Thomas.
"I have total confidence in the chief justice of the United States to deal with these court internal issues," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said this week, suggesting any ethics reforms should be left to the Supreme Court to determine.
Crow has repeatedly maintained his relationship with Thomas included no wrongdoing and that he never tried to influence Thomas' work on the court.
"We have never asked about a pending or lower court case, and Justice Thomas has never discussed one, and we have never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue. More generally, I am unaware of any of our friends ever lobbying or seeking to influence Justice Thomas on any case, and I would never invite anyone who I believe had any intention of doing that," Crow said in a statement after the first ProPublica report was published.
In a statement, Thomas said, "Harlan and Kathy Crow are among our dearest friends, and we have been friends for over twenty-five years. As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them. Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable. I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines. These guidelines are now being changed, as the committee of the Judicial Conference responsible for financial disclosure for the entire federal judiciary just this past month announced new guidance. And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future."
