‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌
[link removed] [[link removed]] John,

It’s becoming increasingly common for Supreme Court justices to refuse to recuse themselves from cases, pointing to their “duty to sit,” which is basically their obligation to hear cases.

I found this incredibly problematic and frankly arrogant. So when I testified before Congress, I called the justices out.

[link removed] [[link removed]]If the justices were serious about this duty to sit then they would, of their own accord, enact significantly preventative measures to eliminate conflicts before they arise.

I’ll explain this more in a moment, but I want to make a request first.

I testified before Congress on CREW’s behalf, demanding an ethical Supreme Court and explaining why the justices are wrong to use the “duty to sit” as an excuse. Help CREW continue fighting for an ethical Supreme Court by donating to support our work today → [[link removed]]If you've saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately:

Donate $5 → [[link removed]]
Donate $25 → [[link removed]]

Donate $50 → [[link removed]]
Donate $100 → [[link removed]]

Donate $250 → [[link removed]]
Other → [[link removed]]

A federal statute, 18 USC 455, mandates recusal for members of the Supreme Court and other federal judges in specific situations, for example, if a justice or judge served as counsel in the matter, or has a "substantial" interest in the outcome of the case. It also mandates recusal in other circumstances when the impartiality of a justice or judge might reasonably be questioned.

That’s a reasonable ethical standard, but the Supreme Court has significantly limited the use of that standard, by adopting the so-called "duty to sit" doctrine.

The “duty to sit” doctrine favors participation of the whole court, regardless of potential controversy and questions of bias, and leaves recusal decisions up to individual justices. This not only produces random and contradictory results, but also raises concerns about whether the judicial process is being twisted and distorted to favor their own personal agenda.

The “duty to sit” cannot and should not override the justices’ higher ethical obligation and their solemn oath to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform” their duties.

That’s why CREW has been fighting, and will continue to fight, for an ethical Supreme Court that is held accountable. Please chip in today to support our work → [[link removed]]Thank you,

Donald Sherman
Executive Vice President and Chief Counsel
CREW

DONATE → [[link removed]]
Make sure this email goes to your inbox. Add [email protected] to your address book.
Email is a key way for us to stay in touch and make sure you get the latest updates from our campaign. But if you would like to unsubscribe, click here [[link removed]] .
If you'd like to donate to support our efforts, please click here → [[link removed]]
© Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 2020–2023
CFC 42218
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
PO Box 14596
Washington, DC 20044
United States