I laud your intent in arguing for the need of ethical guidelines. Let me be clear from the Start. I believe Dobbs to have overreached and I think Justice Alito's argument to have gone far beyond the boundaries of originalism and to be much more an example of judicial activism see below*. My problem is with what those requirements or guidelines might look like and with how they might be enforced. First, however, you fail to mention that there is currently in place another stick that may be used. Impeachment. While only one Justice, Samuel Chase, in 1805, has ever been impeached by the house, and was acquitted by the Senate, Iit is nonetheless a constitutional guardrail already in place. Art 1 sec 2 and Art 2 sec 4 US Constitution. And yes it is, as it should be, a very high bar to vault, if it were to be used.
And before I proceed with enumerating what I see as problems with proposed solutions to the perceived problem of influence and unethical behavior I want to offer an insight into The Chief Justice's so-called indifference to this. First 5. The number needed for a majority decision. As a matter of practice and not principle The Chief when adopting his policeman's role needs be very careful not to alienate the votes needed for a ruling. Second >5. Given the already balkanized condition of the polity the larger the majority the better. So again the need to step softly. e.g. The ACA ruling (7-2). I would also argue that Roberts worked hard, but failed, to restrain Alito's Dobbs opinion. This is not a failure or argument against the institution of the the Court itself or its current composition (neither is the current composition of the court an argument in favor of more regulation). Process is a necessary condition of legitimacy but is by no means a sufficient condition or a guarantee of a correct ruling The Constitution itself is the only foundation on which to ground a ruling. One can argue that a ruling is constitutional in its process yet at the same time a complete misunderstanding of that very Constitution. Any attempts at assuring correct rulings are in fact subversive of our constitution and its foundation which is the realization and argument that sovereignty derives from the citizenry because of our status as free and autonomous being while at the same time along recognizing that majority's are not infallible but can be tyrannical and while minorities need protection they are also not infallible hence the need for an arbitration by a third arm of government. *I offer Brown v Board as the other side of the coin of the the Dobbs ruling as an example of a "constitutional decision". It was in fact far ahead of and in defiance of the majority of the country it was however, on a firm constitutional ground whereas Dobbs strays far from a constitutional foundation despite and because of Alito's tortured historical arguments. Yet both rulings are constitutional.
Now back to what some type of ethical oversight might look like or why it would accomplish its goal of achieving a more fair and just Supreme Court. The criticism leveled against Thomas and Alito is that their association with wealth and their acceptance of gifts in kind and in funds as alleged against Justice Thomas not only lends an appearance of corruption but in fact lead to unjust opinions. If this in fact is the case where or what would be the proof? I think that would be a hard thing to prove and what for example is the difference between this association with wealth and the effect on one's opinions than say an Ivy league education ( with the exception of Justice Barred all are either Harvard or Yale Law greduates, or growing up in a well to do family? Or how does the fact that 7 of the current Justices are Catholic influence their interpretation of the Constitution? Maybe the Justices in exchange for their office be cloistered? Would it matter what their reading is, or what newspapers they may read? Or who their friends are and what are their political positions. When it comes down to it I think much of the concern here is less about the money and more about the content of the rulings. There's certainly jsut as much money on the left aimed at PACS, Politicians, Foundations, and so forth. I think it prudent to require transparency from the Justices in reporting monetary and gifts in kind. Not as a means of preventing influence but rather in the name of honesty and transparency. My guess is that the more liberal Justices were required to list such items it would be in the same monetary ballpark as the other Justices. In the end the Supreme Court and in somewhat the same vein the Electoral college are institutions and processes designed by the founders and ratified by the States to protect us from our darker selves and to promote and encourage our better nature. Without them we'd be much the worse. I'm reminded of a quote from Jefferson Davis, in Shelby Steele's Vol 1 The Civil War: “Revolutions develop the high qualities of the good and the great, but they cannot change the nature of the vicious and the selfish. “
Can you elaborate further on this? I don't follow:
"U.S. Senators representing Democratic votes have outnumbered those representing Republicans ever since 1996. This is calculated by summing the votes for Democratic senators, versus those for Republicans, in each year’s election."
Some elections more Dem Senators than GOP Senators are elected, some elections fewer, right?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The supremes are human people, no matter what they'd have us believe. Term limits. Real, bipartisan vetting. Oversight. Mandatory political balance through mandate or numbers. Some system of appeal that works within the Constitution. Anything but what the Court has become.
The Court has a long history of controversy about and distrust in its decisions. E.g., its defence of slavery, dislike of the New Deal, subsequent embrace of desegregation, abortion and gun ownership and baseless intrusion into a presidential election. . But, distrust of the probity of its individual members has been rarer, until now. The arrogance of Thomas and now Alito, the weakness of Roberts, it’s Chief Justice, all happening together, completes the growing distrust in the other two branches of our central Government, both Congress and the Executive. This is a crisis both domestically and internationally, adding to the long decline in the U.S. standing as a democracy and its values. Whether the voters of the United States, 75 million of who, sought four more years of Donald Trump as president, can constructively address this crisi, seems improbable. The U.S. is in a mess. Whether the eloquence of Jim Fallows and other voices in the media can help resolve the mess is by no means certain. But, they must try.
It isn’t clear that Gore would have won had the counting proceeded. The court should not have taken Gore’s appeal on the grounds that he had raised a political question. Had the issue gone to the House Bush would have won.
Jim I share your disgust that the Supreme Court today should be called the STENCH COURT.
At 89 I have witnessed major oscillations on the Supreme Court. A conservative court was killing important legislation of FDR’s New DeaL [Actually some of the legislation was drafted hastily and badly. Several of the Court’s rejections were 9-0.]
FDR, after a gigantic re-election victory, proposed a Court-packing ‘solution’ to his Court problem. Despite his political power and personal frustration, this was rejected and died a swift death. In subsequent years FDR had the opportunity to select some more progressive justices.
I recall that the appointment of Governor Earl Warren by Ike caused some raised eye brows. He seemed more ‘social’ than judicial in his rulings. He did cajole justices [including a former KKK member] to vote 9-0 in the Brown v. Board of Education 1954 decision that rejected the ‘separate but equal’ decision of 1897.
I sensed that something was out of kilter with the Supreme Court in recent decades. The 1991 vote to appoint Clarence Thomas to the Court was clearly far more political than judicial. Whether on his legal record or on his character, as reflected in the Senate hearing, Thomas had not earned the right of life-time service on the Supreme Court.
Subsequently the Federalist Society, Mitch McConnell, and President Trump engaged in skullduggery to pack the Court with some far-less-than-non-partisan justices.The denial of a hearing for Garland under an absurd McConnell ‘ruling,’ and then his reversal of this absurdity to appoint Bartlett highlighted these judicial jinks.
At one time, I had hoped that Chief Justice Roberts, concerned about the history of the Roberts Court, might be a swing vote on key issues. Unfortunately, now the Court is 5-3 with ‘originalists,’ and Roberts often is not a key figure.
For me, this is compounded by the billionaires who have funneled major goodies to Gina/Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alioto. That Chief Justice Robert’s wife has received fees of over $10,000,000 as a lawyer recruiter, I find smelly.
I strongly belief that the personal ethics of all justices should be beyond reproach. When Justice Abe Fortas displayed poor ethics decades ago, he was obliged to resign.
Sadly, I do not believe that the Constitution, even if both houses of Congress voted to impose ethic standards for Supreme Court justices, permits Congress to impose strict ethics rules for SC justices.
Until or unless a Democratic president and Senate has the opportunity to replace several of the sitting ‘conservative’ justices, there is little that can be done.
My hope (and prayer) is that Clarence and Alioto will realize that their personal ethics sullies the Supreme Court. Another way out hope/prayer is that the current justices will realize that their judicial pyrotechnics violate the soul of present-day America and are opposed to the wishes of a majority of Americans.
More realistically, I am setting a sea anchor in hopes that common sense on the Supreme Court might return after the dreadful hurricane, that commenced in 2010 with Citizens United, has subsided.
I'm reminded that one dissenter in the Dred Scott case, Benjamin Curtis, was the brother of an attorney who argued for Scott's freedom. But no one doubted where the Curtises stood. By contrast, James Buchanan leaned on a fellow Pennsylvanian on the court, Robert Grier, to vote with the five southerners so the decision wouldn't look "regional." Which is worse?
I have no doubt that Alito would have voted Singer's way only 100% of the time, which also makes me wonder why Singer felt the need to buy him off--he must not be the brightest hedge fund billionaire; he should have been offering seats on his plane to Ginsburg and Breyer in hopes of swaying them. But Alito--frankly, not only like Thomas, but also like Scalia before him--appears to think Fux Noise is the revealed word of news, because he sounds, as Thomas does and Scalia did, like they are auditioning for the slot previously held by my publicist, Tucker Carlson.
Jun 23, 2023·edited Jun 24, 2023Liked by James Fallows
💯, Jim... but still, I have a few "questions" to offer for consideration (one counter-speculative and the other more to the point at hand...):
1) Under the aegis of a Gore presidency with the same disposition of seats in the House and Senate, would 9/11 have been thwarted? ... and if not, what would have been the reaction of a marginally GOP House "led" by Speaker Hastert (🙄) and a 50/50 Senate? (and in the latter case, would Jim Jeffords have become an independent who would caucus with the Democrats?)
I would like to believe that Al Gore would have been far more attentive to the PDB's and that continuity with the Clinton administration would have been far more effective... and if not, I would like to believe that the Republicans would have rallied around Al Gore as unambiguously as Democrats did for George Bush... but I'm not particularly confident on either matter... nor am I sanguine that Saddam Hussein would not have struck out again in a radically destabilizing manner (though probably not w/WMDs, but they were never the central question...).
On the other hand I am confident that Al Gore would not have cut taxes in the face of such crises, and I'm also confident that climate change would have remained in the forefront and would have accelerated the technological revolution that is centered on new alternative energy and the emergence of new industries (though again, the role of the Congress might have been a brake on all that...).
More pertinent to your argument, Jim, I have to wonder whether Sandra Day O'Connor would have retired before 2004 and, if she had, what sort of nominee Al Gore could have confirmed. As for replacing the Chief Justice in 2005, we have to wonder who would have been in the White House and under what conditions...
... but that's all speculation-upon-speculation. Here's where we are today:
2) Since impeachment is the only formal way a Supreme Court Justice can be removed from office lawfully, does the DOJ have an equivalent policy for SCOTUS as described by Robert Mueller (among others) for the President (and Vice President, I presume): a sitting [fill-in-the-blank] cannot be indicted though crimes commited while in office are subject to a statue of limitations that would allow indictment once out of office.
While the president can only serve for 8 years and a vice president could, in theory, serve for 16 if elected president after a second term as vice president, the statute of limitations on federal crimes of fraud and bribery apparently are from between 5 and 7 years *from the time the crime was committed* (see below).
We have our "suspicions" given recent reports that have largely been corroborated if still denigrated by the parties to those circumstances, but could the Department of Justice actually pursue a formal indictment of corruption against any sitting member of the highest court in the land? For any crime whatsoever?
And given the statute of limitations, are those justices free from any exposure as long as their "last" dip in the well of corruption was 7 years in the past? (I guess we can be happy they haven't been that careful...)
For what it's worth, it would be nice to know if that DOJ policy exists for SCOTUS (though we'll probably never know if any investigations were stymied or stillborn due to its existence...🤔)
When I had a tiny piece to do with a City Redevelopment project in Southern California, I had to disclose my financial holdings. For a contract in the tens of thousands of dollars.
Caesars wife should apply to the Justices, but since it never will, here is my solution.
A Constitutional Amendment.
"The term of any Federal Judge, in any Federal Court, combined, in total, shall be no more than 14 years."
Love this. My one quibble is that there is one check/balance on the Justices, congressional impeachment. Only been used once in 1804 (and then, not convicted), and certainly not going to be used in the current circumstances. Just a minor point.
It seems so elemental and so obvious. Unfortunately, a combination of partisanship and back scratching culture in Washington will likely doom any efforts to impose ethics standards on SCOTUS.
Republicans are so afraid of acknowledging that their court victories may be the fruits of a poisoned tree that they just will not acknowledge the problem. And, while this may sound like bothsiderism (but not intended as such), I suspect that there are more than a few Democrats who are uncomfortable about ethics discussions in general. It's dispiriting.
Jun 22, 2023·edited Jun 26, 2023Liked by James Fallows
I'm a writer and have benefited greatly from the help and advice of various government officials from a state coroner to an FBI agent. At first I tried to show my appreciation by giving them a copy of my latest novel, but since they cost over over $25, which was the limit put on the value of a gift they could accept, they had to regretfully refuse.
Every. Single. One. of them.
If a clerk in the Alaska Bureau of Health Analytics & Vital Records is respectful of the gift limit, how can a Supreme Court justice not be?
Great piece. But right after you emphasized that you never call it full disclosure, you wrote this: "On these points, we may never know, since Supreme Court members, unlike the millions of other of federal employees, are not subject to ethics laws or full-disclosure requirements."
I laud your intent in arguing for the need of ethical guidelines. Let me be clear from the Start. I believe Dobbs to have overreached and I think Justice Alito's argument to have gone far beyond the boundaries of originalism and to be much more an example of judicial activism see below*. My problem is with what those requirements or guidelines might look like and with how they might be enforced. First, however, you fail to mention that there is currently in place another stick that may be used. Impeachment. While only one Justice, Samuel Chase, in 1805, has ever been impeached by the house, and was acquitted by the Senate, Iit is nonetheless a constitutional guardrail already in place. Art 1 sec 2 and Art 2 sec 4 US Constitution. And yes it is, as it should be, a very high bar to vault, if it were to be used.
And before I proceed with enumerating what I see as problems with proposed solutions to the perceived problem of influence and unethical behavior I want to offer an insight into The Chief Justice's so-called indifference to this. First 5. The number needed for a majority decision. As a matter of practice and not principle The Chief when adopting his policeman's role needs be very careful not to alienate the votes needed for a ruling. Second >5. Given the already balkanized condition of the polity the larger the majority the better. So again the need to step softly. e.g. The ACA ruling (7-2). I would also argue that Roberts worked hard, but failed, to restrain Alito's Dobbs opinion. This is not a failure or argument against the institution of the the Court itself or its current composition (neither is the current composition of the court an argument in favor of more regulation). Process is a necessary condition of legitimacy but is by no means a sufficient condition or a guarantee of a correct ruling The Constitution itself is the only foundation on which to ground a ruling. One can argue that a ruling is constitutional in its process yet at the same time a complete misunderstanding of that very Constitution. Any attempts at assuring correct rulings are in fact subversive of our constitution and its foundation which is the realization and argument that sovereignty derives from the citizenry because of our status as free and autonomous being while at the same time along recognizing that majority's are not infallible but can be tyrannical and while minorities need protection they are also not infallible hence the need for an arbitration by a third arm of government. *I offer Brown v Board as the other side of the coin of the the Dobbs ruling as an example of a "constitutional decision". It was in fact far ahead of and in defiance of the majority of the country it was however, on a firm constitutional ground whereas Dobbs strays far from a constitutional foundation despite and because of Alito's tortured historical arguments. Yet both rulings are constitutional.
Now back to what some type of ethical oversight might look like or why it would accomplish its goal of achieving a more fair and just Supreme Court. The criticism leveled against Thomas and Alito is that their association with wealth and their acceptance of gifts in kind and in funds as alleged against Justice Thomas not only lends an appearance of corruption but in fact lead to unjust opinions. If this in fact is the case where or what would be the proof? I think that would be a hard thing to prove and what for example is the difference between this association with wealth and the effect on one's opinions than say an Ivy league education ( with the exception of Justice Barred all are either Harvard or Yale Law greduates, or growing up in a well to do family? Or how does the fact that 7 of the current Justices are Catholic influence their interpretation of the Constitution? Maybe the Justices in exchange for their office be cloistered? Would it matter what their reading is, or what newspapers they may read? Or who their friends are and what are their political positions. When it comes down to it I think much of the concern here is less about the money and more about the content of the rulings. There's certainly jsut as much money on the left aimed at PACS, Politicians, Foundations, and so forth. I think it prudent to require transparency from the Justices in reporting monetary and gifts in kind. Not as a means of preventing influence but rather in the name of honesty and transparency. My guess is that the more liberal Justices were required to list such items it would be in the same monetary ballpark as the other Justices. In the end the Supreme Court and in somewhat the same vein the Electoral college are institutions and processes designed by the founders and ratified by the States to protect us from our darker selves and to promote and encourage our better nature. Without them we'd be much the worse. I'm reminded of a quote from Jefferson Davis, in Shelby Steele's Vol 1 The Civil War: “Revolutions develop the high qualities of the good and the great, but they cannot change the nature of the vicious and the selfish. “
Can you elaborate further on this? I don't follow:
"U.S. Senators representing Democratic votes have outnumbered those representing Republicans ever since 1996. This is calculated by summing the votes for Democratic senators, versus those for Republicans, in each year’s election."
Some elections more Dem Senators than GOP Senators are elected, some elections fewer, right?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The supremes are human people, no matter what they'd have us believe. Term limits. Real, bipartisan vetting. Oversight. Mandatory political balance through mandate or numbers. Some system of appeal that works within the Constitution. Anything but what the Court has become.
GMAFB! :) I love the moral clarity here. Thank you, James!
The Court has a long history of controversy about and distrust in its decisions. E.g., its defence of slavery, dislike of the New Deal, subsequent embrace of desegregation, abortion and gun ownership and baseless intrusion into a presidential election. . But, distrust of the probity of its individual members has been rarer, until now. The arrogance of Thomas and now Alito, the weakness of Roberts, it’s Chief Justice, all happening together, completes the growing distrust in the other two branches of our central Government, both Congress and the Executive. This is a crisis both domestically and internationally, adding to the long decline in the U.S. standing as a democracy and its values. Whether the voters of the United States, 75 million of who, sought four more years of Donald Trump as president, can constructively address this crisi, seems improbable. The U.S. is in a mess. Whether the eloquence of Jim Fallows and other voices in the media can help resolve the mess is by no means certain. But, they must try.
"Therefore there is no remedy but the Congress."
We're screwed then, aren't we?
It isn’t clear that Gore would have won had the counting proceeded. The court should not have taken Gore’s appeal on the grounds that he had raised a political question. Had the issue gone to the House Bush would have won.
Jim I share your disgust that the Supreme Court today should be called the STENCH COURT.
At 89 I have witnessed major oscillations on the Supreme Court. A conservative court was killing important legislation of FDR’s New DeaL [Actually some of the legislation was drafted hastily and badly. Several of the Court’s rejections were 9-0.]
FDR, after a gigantic re-election victory, proposed a Court-packing ‘solution’ to his Court problem. Despite his political power and personal frustration, this was rejected and died a swift death. In subsequent years FDR had the opportunity to select some more progressive justices.
I recall that the appointment of Governor Earl Warren by Ike caused some raised eye brows. He seemed more ‘social’ than judicial in his rulings. He did cajole justices [including a former KKK member] to vote 9-0 in the Brown v. Board of Education 1954 decision that rejected the ‘separate but equal’ decision of 1897.
I sensed that something was out of kilter with the Supreme Court in recent decades. The 1991 vote to appoint Clarence Thomas to the Court was clearly far more political than judicial. Whether on his legal record or on his character, as reflected in the Senate hearing, Thomas had not earned the right of life-time service on the Supreme Court.
Subsequently the Federalist Society, Mitch McConnell, and President Trump engaged in skullduggery to pack the Court with some far-less-than-non-partisan justices.The denial of a hearing for Garland under an absurd McConnell ‘ruling,’ and then his reversal of this absurdity to appoint Bartlett highlighted these judicial jinks.
At one time, I had hoped that Chief Justice Roberts, concerned about the history of the Roberts Court, might be a swing vote on key issues. Unfortunately, now the Court is 5-3 with ‘originalists,’ and Roberts often is not a key figure.
For me, this is compounded by the billionaires who have funneled major goodies to Gina/Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alioto. That Chief Justice Robert’s wife has received fees of over $10,000,000 as a lawyer recruiter, I find smelly.
I strongly belief that the personal ethics of all justices should be beyond reproach. When Justice Abe Fortas displayed poor ethics decades ago, he was obliged to resign.
Sadly, I do not believe that the Constitution, even if both houses of Congress voted to impose ethic standards for Supreme Court justices, permits Congress to impose strict ethics rules for SC justices.
Until or unless a Democratic president and Senate has the opportunity to replace several of the sitting ‘conservative’ justices, there is little that can be done.
My hope (and prayer) is that Clarence and Alioto will realize that their personal ethics sullies the Supreme Court. Another way out hope/prayer is that the current justices will realize that their judicial pyrotechnics violate the soul of present-day America and are opposed to the wishes of a majority of Americans.
More realistically, I am setting a sea anchor in hopes that common sense on the Supreme Court might return after the dreadful hurricane, that commenced in 2010 with Citizens United, has subsided.
I'm reminded that one dissenter in the Dred Scott case, Benjamin Curtis, was the brother of an attorney who argued for Scott's freedom. But no one doubted where the Curtises stood. By contrast, James Buchanan leaned on a fellow Pennsylvanian on the court, Robert Grier, to vote with the five southerners so the decision wouldn't look "regional." Which is worse?
I have no doubt that Alito would have voted Singer's way only 100% of the time, which also makes me wonder why Singer felt the need to buy him off--he must not be the brightest hedge fund billionaire; he should have been offering seats on his plane to Ginsburg and Breyer in hopes of swaying them. But Alito--frankly, not only like Thomas, but also like Scalia before him--appears to think Fux Noise is the revealed word of news, because he sounds, as Thomas does and Scalia did, like they are auditioning for the slot previously held by my publicist, Tucker Carlson.
💯, Jim... but still, I have a few "questions" to offer for consideration (one counter-speculative and the other more to the point at hand...):
1) Under the aegis of a Gore presidency with the same disposition of seats in the House and Senate, would 9/11 have been thwarted? ... and if not, what would have been the reaction of a marginally GOP House "led" by Speaker Hastert (🙄) and a 50/50 Senate? (and in the latter case, would Jim Jeffords have become an independent who would caucus with the Democrats?)
I would like to believe that Al Gore would have been far more attentive to the PDB's and that continuity with the Clinton administration would have been far more effective... and if not, I would like to believe that the Republicans would have rallied around Al Gore as unambiguously as Democrats did for George Bush... but I'm not particularly confident on either matter... nor am I sanguine that Saddam Hussein would not have struck out again in a radically destabilizing manner (though probably not w/WMDs, but they were never the central question...).
On the other hand I am confident that Al Gore would not have cut taxes in the face of such crises, and I'm also confident that climate change would have remained in the forefront and would have accelerated the technological revolution that is centered on new alternative energy and the emergence of new industries (though again, the role of the Congress might have been a brake on all that...).
More pertinent to your argument, Jim, I have to wonder whether Sandra Day O'Connor would have retired before 2004 and, if she had, what sort of nominee Al Gore could have confirmed. As for replacing the Chief Justice in 2005, we have to wonder who would have been in the White House and under what conditions...
... but that's all speculation-upon-speculation. Here's where we are today:
2) Since impeachment is the only formal way a Supreme Court Justice can be removed from office lawfully, does the DOJ have an equivalent policy for SCOTUS as described by Robert Mueller (among others) for the President (and Vice President, I presume): a sitting [fill-in-the-blank] cannot be indicted though crimes commited while in office are subject to a statue of limitations that would allow indictment once out of office.
While the president can only serve for 8 years and a vice president could, in theory, serve for 16 if elected president after a second term as vice president, the statute of limitations on federal crimes of fraud and bribery apparently are from between 5 and 7 years *from the time the crime was committed* (see below).
We have our "suspicions" given recent reports that have largely been corroborated if still denigrated by the parties to those circumstances, but could the Department of Justice actually pursue a formal indictment of corruption against any sitting member of the highest court in the land? For any crime whatsoever?
And given the statute of limitations, are those justices free from any exposure as long as their "last" dip in the well of corruption was 7 years in the past? (I guess we can be happy they haven't been that careful...)
For what it's worth, it would be nice to know if that DOJ policy exists for SCOTUS (though we'll probably never know if any investigations were stymied or stillborn due to its existence...🤔)
see: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf
When I had a tiny piece to do with a City Redevelopment project in Southern California, I had to disclose my financial holdings. For a contract in the tens of thousands of dollars.
Caesars wife should apply to the Justices, but since it never will, here is my solution.
A Constitutional Amendment.
"The term of any Federal Judge, in any Federal Court, combined, in total, shall be no more than 14 years."
Love this. My one quibble is that there is one check/balance on the Justices, congressional impeachment. Only been used once in 1804 (and then, not convicted), and certainly not going to be used in the current circumstances. Just a minor point.
It seems so elemental and so obvious. Unfortunately, a combination of partisanship and back scratching culture in Washington will likely doom any efforts to impose ethics standards on SCOTUS.
Republicans are so afraid of acknowledging that their court victories may be the fruits of a poisoned tree that they just will not acknowledge the problem. And, while this may sound like bothsiderism (but not intended as such), I suspect that there are more than a few Democrats who are uncomfortable about ethics discussions in general. It's dispiriting.
I'm a writer and have benefited greatly from the help and advice of various government officials from a state coroner to an FBI agent. At first I tried to show my appreciation by giving them a copy of my latest novel, but since they cost over over $25, which was the limit put on the value of a gift they could accept, they had to regretfully refuse.
Every. Single. One. of them.
If a clerk in the Alaska Bureau of Health Analytics & Vital Records is respectful of the gift limit, how can a Supreme Court justice not be?
Great piece. But right after you emphasized that you never call it full disclosure, you wrote this: "On these points, we may never know, since Supreme Court members, unlike the millions of other of federal employees, are not subject to ethics laws or full-disclosure requirements."