The Chair of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee made a rare “request” to Justice John Roberts late Friday afternoon, that C.J. Roberts appear before the Committee and answer specific questions about financial disclosures and ethics currently lingering over the United States Supreme Court.

Senator Durbin’s office announced the request late in the day and it remains unknown whether the Chief Justice will honor the request. A “request” differs from a subpoena in that the Justice may choose not to appear. A subpoena might introduce cross-branch Constitutional issues.

Tough decision and C.J. Roberts must make it fast.

According to CBS News, Sen. Durbin asked the Chief to testify before the Committee on May 2nd.

The topic is sure to make the Chief squirm. From CBS:

 [T]o answer questions about ethics rules governing the Supreme Court and potential reforms following a series of revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas’ close ties to a billionaire Republican donor.

A broader request might allow Roberts to speak in cliches or platitudes without addressing the most direct and obvious problem, Justice Clarence Thomas’s financial disclosures.

And yet, questions involving conflicts springing from financial relationships – the sole reason judges file financial disclosures – may lead the Committee to quickly transition into conflicts generally.

Justice Thomas’s actions, both as the spouse to highly partisan Ginni Thomas and Justice Thomas’s decision to sit on cases with a clear conflict, angered Democrats over the last two years with strong concerns about accountability.

The fury simmered long before Justice Thomas’s failure to disclose highly controversial financial gifts and conflicts.

The “wiggle room” to ask broader questions appears in the statement itself:

The Illinois Democrat said the scope of Roberts’ potential testimony could be limited to only the subjects of the ethics measures and potential reforms to them, and he would not be expected to answer questions from committee members about other matters.

In other words, Committee members will not drill him about overthrowing 50 years of precedent or any other cases.

But will likely drift beyond Thomas.

NPR reminds readers that Roberts spoke about other turbulent issues in the fall of 2022, issues that have the Court’s trust and faith rating at historic lows:

Roberts defended the court’s authority last September when he was interviewed by two judges from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at a conference saying, “You don’t want the political branches telling you what the law is, and you don’t want public opinion to be the guide about what the appropriate decision is.”

Critics might retort that you don’t want five justice’s personal beliefs upending 50 years of precedent.

And the Court might be better served by paying attention to the impact such reversals have on the public and its faith in the judicial process.

Decorum, tradition, and the equality of branches won’t allow direct questions about the impact of Court decisions.

But even those concerns will linger over the proceedings. The Judiciary Committee will question Roberts about the Court’s failure to adhere to its own standards.

One won’t directly hear the word “precedent,” but stare decisis is most certainly supposed to be another self-imposed standard.

The opportunity is as rare as it is important.

Congress might consider legislation requiring the imposition of ethical rules.

But is not self-evident that such a law is Constitutional… again, equal branches. And everyone knows which body would decide the Constitutionality of any Congressional attempt.

Provided Roberts agrees to appear (likely), he understands the stakes better than anyone. History books pointing to this controversial and unpopular Court will reference the Court in Roberts’s name. Then again, Roberts might decide to “appoint” Thomas to appear.”

Roberts might cite “efficiency” as the reason.

****

[email protected], @JasonMiciak and SUBSTACK: DOMINION GOT PAID: BUT MONEY WON’T FIX THE DAMAGE TO DEMOCRACY