Judge for Judicial Transparency: In today’s society, the public’s perception of judges and the judiciary is undergoing scrutiny and questioning. Amid this skepticism, Judge Amul Thapar, a respected member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, has emerged as a staunch advocate for greater transparency within the judicial system. With his new book on Justice Clarence Thomas, Judge Thapar seeks to challenge misconceptions and restore faith in the courts.
Rising Public Scrutiny
Public approval of the Supreme Court has been on a decline in recent years. Many people view federal judges as biased and driven by personal ideology rather than impartially interpreting the law. The courts have faced numerous high-profile cases related to race, gay rights, and student loans, further contributing to the perception that judges are politicians in robes. These factors have fueled a growing skepticism regarding the integrity and motivations of federal judges.
The Call for Transparency
Amidst these concerns, Judge Thapar firmly believes that increasing transparency in the judiciary can dispel skepticism and restore public trust. He argues that it is not just financial disclosures and potential conflicts that need to be addressed, but also the decision-making process itself. By shedding light on how judges reach their decisions, he believes that people would gain a deeper understanding of the judicial system and develop more faith in its functioning.
The Need for Greater Transparency
Recent revelations surrounding Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. accepting luxury vacations and private jet trips without proper financial disclosures have intensified calls for reform. In response, the Senate Judiciary Committee plans to consider legislation that would impose new ethics rules on the Supreme Court. Although the outcome of this legislation is uncertain, it underscores the growing unease surrounding the conduct of the court and its members.
Judge Thapar’s Confidence in the Court
Judge Thapar, as a Trump appointee, expresses unwavering confidence in the integrity of the justices. He emphasizes that all nine justices, whom he personally knows, are individuals of immense integrity. According to him, they make their rulings based on their interpretation of the law, rather than being influenced by personal beliefs or external pressures. Judge Thapar’s trust in the judges’ commitment to upholding the law aims to reassure the public that the courts remain impartial.
Also Read: U.S. Successfully Eliminates Weapons
Judge Thapar’s Background and Book
As the son of Indian immigrants and a resident of Kentucky, Judge Thapar brings a unique perspective to the judiciary. He was appointed to the Cincinnati-based appeals court by President Donald J. Trump in 2017 and was later considered for a Supreme Court vacancy. Although he wasn’t selected, his nomination highlights the possibility of him becoming the first Indian American on the high court.
In his book titled “The People’s Justice: Clarence Thomas and the Constitutional Stories that Define Him,” Judge Thapar passionately defends Justice Clarence Thomas and the legal concept of originalism. He seeks to correct misconceptions surrounding originalism and highlight Justice Thomas’s record of siding with ordinary Americans against powerful government forces.
Justice Thomas’s Record in the People’s Interest
Judge Thapar argues that Justice Thomas’s adherence to originalism, which emphasizes interpreting the Constitution based on its original intent, serves the interests of ordinary people. By examining 12 cases in his book, Judge Thapar aims to challenge the notion that Justice Thomas’s originalism favors the wealthy and powerful. He asserts that the core idea behind originalism is to honor the will of the people, and Justice Thomas consistently applies this principle to protect the rights of ordinary citizens.
Addressing Current Controversies
As Judge Thapar promotes his book, he finds himself addressing not only Justice Thomas’s record but also the current controversies surrounding the court. It is important to note that it is unusual for a federal judge to engage with the media on such matters, as they typically avoid the spotlight. However, Judge Thapar’s willingness to openly discuss both Justice Thomas’s approach and the public scrutiny of the court demonstrates his commitment to fostering public understanding.
Ethics Rules and Financial Reporting
One of the key debates revolves around subjecting the high court to the same ethics rules and financial reporting requirements as lower federal jurists. While Judge Thapar refrains from expressing a personal opinion on the matter, he acknowledges that providing the required information and adhering to existing rules is crucial. However, he also emphasizes the need to avoid over-disclosure, as it can lead to a “game of gotcha” where judges are excessively scrutinized for what they have or haven’t made public.
Independence of the Judiciary
Judge Thapar strongly believes in the independence of the judiciary as a separate branch of government. He emphasizes that judges are committed to upholding their oath and the law, regardless of external influences. Dismissing notions of favoritism or bias, he asserts that judges make their decisions based solely on their interpretation of the law, regardless of personal opinions or pressure from others.
Conclusion of Judge for Judicial Transparency
As the debate between Congress and the courts unfolds, the outcome remains uncertain. Judge Thapar’s unwavering belief in the strength and integrity of the judiciary serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability. While challenges persist, his advocacy for judicial transparency and his efforts to dispel misconceptions surrounding originalism and Justice Thomas’s record reflect his commitment to fostering public understanding and faith in the judiciary.
Our Reader’s Queries
What is judicial transparency?
The public must be aware that cases are meant to be heard openly and the courts are truly accessible to them.
What are the 3 types of judges?
The President selects Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges. These choices must be approved by the United States Senate, in accordance with the Constitution.
How are judges held accountable?
Judges are responsible for their performance and can have their decisions overturned on appeal. In cases of more serious charges at the local level, judges’ actions are scrutinized by the state Supreme courts and can face sanctions, including removal from office. At the Federal Level, judges can be impeached for their actions.
What is the difference between a judicial officer and a judge?
A “judge” can mean any judicial official, such as Supreme Court justices. A Superior Court judge handles a variety of cases, including criminal, civil family law, probate, mental health, juvenile, or traffic cases. To become a judge, you must have practiced law in California for at least 10 years.