With the torrent of revelations about the terrible nominees for Donald Trump’s upcoming second term having the title of president, it was easy to miss the news about the awful people Trump had already appointed in his first go-round who are still jammed in there, like the three most recently appointed Supreme Court justices.
I missed the news on Wednesday that Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, who took the slot that should have rightfully been filled by President Barack Obama’s nominee, has recused himself from a case that could benefit some of his oil tycoon cronies. I only became aware of the case this morning, in an e-mail from The Lever.
As you know, the United States Supreme Court, unlike all other federal courts, and probably all state supreme courts, does not have an enforceable code of ethics, though it does have something called a code of ethics. It’s like the fox promising to stay out of the henhouse, and about as useless.
There is no law saying Gorsuch must recuse himself from cases involving his cronies. But he did, maybe because he has a tiny shred of integrity. Or maybe because a lot of people set a spotlight on Gorsuch and his clear and “blatant conflict of interest” in this case. The latter explanation is not one you’d get from most of the headlines about this recusal.
As far as I can see, Newsweek is the only publication with a headline that suggests Gorsuch might not have recused himself if no one had said anything about his conflict of interest in the case. The article by Aila Slisco is titled “Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch Recuses Himself From Case After Pressure.”
Supreme Court Justice
Neil Gorsuch has agreed to recuse himself from an upcoming case following a pressure campaign from activist groups and Democratic lawmakers.
Gorsuch, part of the court's current 6-3 conservative [sic] majority, indicated on Wednesday that he would not be participating in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, a case that will determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to consider "downline impacts" of projects like oil drilling operations.
Calls for the justice to recuse himself intensified due to his relationship with Philip Anschutz, a Colorado billionaire who built his fortune in the oil industry and could benefit from the court's ruling. Gorsuch represented Anschutz while working as a corporate lawyer in the early 2000s.
The case is scheduled to be heard next week.
The current case is set for oral arguments on December 10 and arrived at the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court sided with Eagle County's lawsuit to block the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition-sponsored construction of a rail line in rural Utah. The decision hinged on a claim that the project violated NEPA by not considering indirect environmental impacts.
In September, the Anschutz Exploration Corporation filed an amicus brief ... urging Supreme Court justices to limit the scope of NEPA and to allow the rail line to be constructed by overturning the lower court's decision.
"Because NEPA applies to every major federal action—including the authorizations Anschutz needs to develop federal oil-and-gas reserves—far more is at stake in this case than the 88-mile rail line in rural Utah," the brief states.
Huh. So some poor billionaire might be deprived of some fossil fuel profits? How horrible!
Last month, Democratic Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia and 12 of his House colleagues sent a letter to Gorsuch, demanding his recusal, arguing that Anschutz "played a significant role" in his ascent to the Supreme Court in addition to ongoing personal ties.
"To show the American people that the Supreme Court is impartial, you must recuse yourself from any case that directly impacts the financial fortunes of Philip Anschutz, the man who was your previous legal client, who helped raise you to the Supreme Court, and who now treats you to lavish vacations on his exclusive 60-square-mile ranch," the lawmakers wrote.
One recusal is not enough to make the Supreme Court honestly impartial. But at least Gorsuch’s recusal shows that the nation’s highest court has not been completely corrupted.
