Os tribunais da jurisdição constitucional precisam de um código de ética

Viagens particulares subsidiadas por advogados, amigos ou não, lealdade à presidência que nomeia, suas simpatias políticas devem ser discutidas no âmbito de um estrito código de ética para membros das mais altas cortes do país. Até que ponto a vida privada está dissociada da vida pública de tais agentes públicos? Transcrevo abaixo a reflexão feita por Chris Kaegard sobre a situação na Suprema Corte norte-americana. Os links trazem um debate ainda mais apurado sobre o assunto.

Here’s An interesting one, because it’s a complaint that if not unites the left and the right, is at least one that is shared by Republicans and Democrats for different reasons and because of different personalities.

I refer to the debate over whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court ought to have somewhat stricter rules governing when justices have to recuse themselves from hearing cases because of conflicts of interest. Chief Justice John Roberts hit on the subject in his end-of-year report on the judiciary at the close of last week and, in essence, told members of Congress to back off.

That’s fine and understandable, particularly since one of the ways that some politicians are choosing to address the issue is by suggesting that Congress ought to craft some rules. As I’ve observed several times in recent weeks, we have separation of powers for a reason. (That has also come up in regard to two recent proposals for Congress to meddle in the business of the courts — one from GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich, the other from U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-IL.)

Roberts essentially made the same argument (though with better legal language than I’m able to employ), that any such changes will have to come from the court itself. The matter has gained new traction because of the upcoming arguments on the constitutionality of the “Obamacare” health reforms. On the right, Republicans aren’t pleased at the idea that Elena Kagan did work for Obama as his solicitor general. On the left, Democrats are displeased at the activism Clarence Thomas’ wife has been involved in relating to the topic.

The chief justice also noted that “charges that ‘the Supreme Court is exempt from the ethical principles that lower courts observe’ is based on ‘misconceptions about both the Supreme Court and the code.’”

The Journal Star’s editorial page weighed in on the matter about 10 months ago — itsperspective is here. A particularly good take on the topic from CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen is here.

What say you? Are some clarifications and changes to the rules governing this needed?

(By the way, in the spirit of the fullest of full disclosures, Roberts couldn’t pick me out of a crowd to win a $1 million bet, but his name and mine do intersect in a Google search. He presided over a Columbia Law School moot court competition in 2008 in which the case was written by a dear friend of mine. As a tip of the hat she made me “the bad guy” in the fictitious case of Nafziger v. Kaergard.)