Handing Out Apples and Oranges: The Media’s Uneven Portrayal of Conservative Judges

The Supreme Court has been the recent target of a relentless and strategic campaign aimed at undermining its credibility and impartiality. Left-leaning publications such as ProPublica, Slate, and The Guardian have orchestrated an assault against conservative judges. These claims are bolstered by Senate Democrats who conjure a new ethics “scandal” against the Court every week, while remaining eerily silent when confronted with the same type of actions from liberal judges.

Their motive? To cause the American people to question the legitimacy of the Republican-appointed justices. These publications and elected officials are not arguing that any of the justices’ actions violated the existing judicial ethics rules. Instead, by advocating for “judiciary ethics,” they’re really only generating skepticism around conservative judges’ impartiality.

While these attacks may not be as dramatic or physically threatening as recent demonstrations outside the homes of conservative justices, they are no less persistent and damaging. By attempting to discredit conservative justices and their supporters as recipients of “dark money,” these critics conveniently overlook the lack of constitutional basis for their evaluations of the Court’s inner workings. This selective scrutiny creates doubts about the integrity of the Court, a pillar of justice in our democratic system.

Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Dick Durbin have spearheaded these efforts, directly targeting conservative donors and groups like the Federalist Society. These senators have ramped up intimidation efforts with an amicus brief in a firearms case saying the Court is “not well” and that if it did not rule the way that they wanted, the Court might have to be “restructured.” Majority leader Chuck Schumer took a more direct approach, brazenly threatening that Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch would “pay the price” for their “awful decisions.”

While Democrats relentlessly criticize conservative justices for alleged conflicts of interest, they turn a blind eye to the same conduct among their own. For instance, many liberals have called for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from cases due to his wife’s political affiliations. Yet in 2011, a liberal judge, Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, declined to recuse himself from a case involving Proposition 8, which was a challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage. Ramona Ripston, the leader of Southern California’s ACLU, openly opposed Proposition 8 and submitted two amicus briefs arguing that the amendment was unconstitutional. Conveniently, Ramona Ripston was married to Judge Reinhardt at the time.

Similarly, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not recuse herself from cases involving her husband’s law firm, nor did she disclose donations and awards she received, including a $1 million award from the Berggruen Institute used for undisclosed charitable causes, nor did she disclose her public relationship with pro-abortion group National Organization for Women, which frequently had business before the Court – even helping the organization fundraise. The Democrats’ silence on similar actions by liberal judges reveals a clear double standard.

Yet, Senate Democrats and publications like ProPublica insist that Justice Thomas’ acceptance of gifts and favors from a billionaire friend are ethics violations. ProPublica attacked Justice Samuel Alito for trips funded by conservative groups, while Justice Neil Gorsuch faced scrutiny for a real estate transaction involving a lawyer with cases before the Court — a lawyer who was a self-proclaimed Democrat and never met Gorsuch. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett were also targeted due to their connections to legal firms and organizations.

Similarly, Justice Stephen Breyer took numerous trips paid for by private individuals, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor faced accusations of failing to disclose trips paid for by outside groups and did not recuse herself from cases involving her publisher — who paid her $3 million in royalties. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also neglected to disclose her husband’s income as a medical malpractice consultant and expenses from speaking engagements. The response from ProPublica? Deafening silence.

These instances of questionable behavior remain unaddressed, further exposing the partisan nature of the attacks on the Court.

Beyond the professional realm, the families of conservative justices have not been spared from vitriol and scrutiny. Attacks persist against Justice Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, for her conservative political activism. The relentless bludgeoning of Justice Thomas’s reputation has continued since the Anita Hill allegations, and many Democrats and left-leaning organizations seem determined to capitalize on any opportunity to smear conservative justices.

The intensification of these attacks can be traced back to recent events, such as the amicus brief filed by Senator Whitehouse and five other Democratic Senators in a firearms case, suggesting the possibility of “restructuring” the Court if it did not rule in their favor. Additionally, court-packing proposals and the convening of a commission by President Biden to study potential reforms to the Supreme Court have further fueled the campaign against the Court’s legitimacy.

To compound matters, Democrats in Congress are seeking to impose a new code of conduct on the justices, a move that would likely result in an incessant stream of ethical charges and recusal motions. These actions clearly infringe on the separation of powers and raise concerns about potential interference with the Court’s independence. After all, Congress did not create the Supreme Court — our Constitution did.

Despite the relentless nature of these attacks, it is doubtful that they have influenced the justices’ decisions in any significant manner. Still, the damage caused by these biased and politically motivated campaigns is far-reaching. According to the latest Gallup poll, the Court’s approval rating sits at 40% — tied with its lowest rating since Gallup began conducting polls on this matter in 2000.

To protect the integrity of our system of separation of powers and checks and balances, it is imperative to halt this relentless assault on the Supreme Court’s legitimacy. The attacks from left-wing publications and Senate Democrats undermine the Court’s credibility, selectively targeting conservative justices and their supporters while remaining silent on liberal justices’ actions. If these attackers are truly concerned with the integrity of the Court, then they must first justify the utility of their proposed ethics code — and then they ought to hold all judges accountable under it, regardless of judicial philosophy.

In the words of French historian and critic Alexis de Tocqueville, “Within these limits the power vested in the American courts of justice of pronouncing a statute to be unconstitutional forms one of the most powerful barriers that have ever been devised against the tyranny of political assemblies.” In light of the recent attacks on the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, Tocqueville’s words ring true: It is imperative to safeguard the Court’s integrity to preserve the essential check it provides within the American system of governance.

Image by Jackie Hope is licensed under the Unsplash License.