The public’s faith in the judiciary rests on a belief in the court’s impartiality. If the public believes that some get a better shake from the judicial system than others because of financial or political connections, then the trust breaks down, and with it the respect for the institution and its decisions.
For that reason, judges are expected to be scrupulous about avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. At least two members of the nation’s highest court, however, don’t seem to be all that concerned about appearances.
Recent investigations into lavish, previously unreported free trips for Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have raises questions about the ethical standards by which these two justices hold themselves.
A couple of months ago, ProPublica exposed how Thomas for decades has received swanky free vacations from a Republican megadonor, who has also purchased property from Thomas and paid private school tuition for a Thomas nephew whom the justice helped raise.
Now, the investigative news organization has uncovered a luxury fishing trip, taken in 2008 by Alito, that was paid for by two other Republican donors, including one who subsequently had about a dozen cases before the nation’s highest court, all of which Alito reportedly weighed in on.
None of these freebies — estimated to be worth tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars — were reported by the two justices on their annual financial disclosure reports. Although both justices claim they were not influenced by the gifts in any of their decision-making, it is natural for those who are critical of the majority-conservative court to be skeptical.
That is precisely the point Thomas and Alito are missing. It is not enough to be certain in their own minds that they have done nothing unethical. The onus on judges is to avoid the appearance that might lead someone to believe otherwise.
Alito and Thomas are well-compensated for their government services. Each earns almost $300,000 a year as a Supreme Court justice. They can afford to pay for their own vacations.
But even if they couldn’t, if their government salary were miserly, they would have an obligation to steer clear of accepting any favors — financial or otherwise — that could compromise their impartiality in an objective observer’s eye.
These disclosures underline the need for tougher rules of conduct for Supreme Court justices, similar to those imposed on lower courts. It is nonsensical that a promotion to the highest court in the land brings less accountability, not more.
