Letter rejected by the Tulsa World: Supreme Court

Judicial ethics? What’s that?

Trump’s extreme judicial selections are leading to highly partisan outcomes and the Oklahoma delegation’s contribution to diminishing the Supreme Court’s integrity should not be overlooked. Senators Lankford and Inhofe helped install the three Trump nominees, leading to Roe being overturned—though all three publicly implied a belief in “stare decisis” meaning Roe was the “settled law.” Interestingly, Stitt’s appointee John O’Conner, said the same in Trump judgeship hearings, but during his first week as A.G. began anti-choice activism at taxpayer expense.

Here we are, in post-Roe America. Recall the uproar when a version of the Dobbs opinion was leaked. Most Oklahoma pols immediately blamed “the libs”—though to Sen. Lankford’s credit, he “withheld judgement.” Justice Roberts called the Court Marshal, Gail Curley to investigate the damaging leak. To nobody’s surprise, the leaker remains a mystery. But to the surprise of many, Marshal Curley’s failed report was praised by an outside risk assessment firm with a previously undisclosed relationship with the Roberts court involving more than $1million.

None of the nine justices or their spouses were interviewed under oath or signed sworn affidavits. What kind of investigation is that?

Other recent ethical breaches include: Newly disclosed Chief Justice Roberts’ wife has been receiving millions of consulting dollars pertaining to nominees to the court.. And there’s “No-recusal” Clarence and Ginny Thomas. (“Insurrection? What insurrection”)

The Justices have no code of ethics--literally. Sen. Lankford, et al., seem okay with this.