Why Liberals Must Still Critique Justice Sotomayor

My new essay in The Hill explains why judicial ethics critiques must always remain apolitical.

Here is the gist:

The Hill 

All Supreme Court ethics lapses deserve scrutiny, including Sotomayor’s

BY STEVEN LUBET, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 08/22/23

Because disregard for the code has not been limited to Republican or Democratic appointees, it is important for commentators to be even-handed in their assessments of the justices’ conduct.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor is much beloved by liberals, including me, but that does not mean she is never wrong. 

As an Associated Press investigation recently discovered, Sotomayor has frequently used her court staff to promote sales of her memoir and children’s books at speaking engagements and signing events, which violated basic principles of judicial ethics.

To some admirers, however, Sotomayor’s staff use is a non-issue.

There is a tendency on all sides to forgive or discount the ethical lapses of those we admire. Justice Thomas’s extravagant vacationing, and flouting of disclosure rules, thus draw yawns from Republicans. 

While violations differ in severity — dozens of undisclosed luxury junkets are far more serious than asking staff to boost book sales — judicial ethics principles must still be politically neutral, applied equally to the modest Justice Sotomayor, the affable Justice Thomas and the dour Justice Alito. We cannot fairly criticize our nemeses for conduct we accept among our own. 

You can read the full essay at The Hill.