Congress Has The Power To End Corruption At The Supreme Court

Supreme Court justices are among the most powerful figures in the country. Appointed for what amount to lifetime terms, justices are at the center of, if not the prime motivator behind, the biggest social and political issues of our day.

This makes it all the more troubling that some justices have such a cavalier attitude toward mundane issues like personal ethics. The recent revelations of apparent ethical lapses, coupled with controversial decisions including overturning Roe v. Wade has hurt the court's public standing. According to a recent Quinnipiac University poll:

Nearly 7 in 10 Americans (68 percent) think that the Supreme Court is mainly motivated by politics, while 25 percent think that the Supreme Court is mainly motivated by the law.

While some will say, not without justification, that the Court has, since it was created, been more concerned about politics than the law. But the current issue about ethics, and how blithely justices dismiss their responsibility to disclose lucrative gifts of travel and other favors is another matter entirely.

Consider the recent escapades of Justice Samuel Alito. The Bush appointee published a rebuttal of a ProPublica investigative piece about his failure to disclose a luxury fishing trip that individuals with cases before the court paid for.

Alito published his rebuttal on the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal before ProPublica published its article. Setting aside a newspaper's willingness to carry so much water for anyone in official Washington…Alito's hubris – denying any wrongdoing, errors in judgement or even unintentional errors, is both striking and very on-brand for justices in general.

As The Washington Post notes, justices have long squabbled over their own ethics rules, and what they should disclose about the trips, gifts and favors they accepted.

This shouldn't be an issue for debate, but somehow it is. Lower court judges have binding ethics rules. They (generally) follow those rules. The result is (generally) public confidence that equal justice at least has a chance of being applied in a federal court.

Not so with the Supreme Court, which is still considering the matter. As the Post writes:

The Supreme Court ought to impose this clear, comprehensive code of conduct upon itself. If it doesn't, Congress should mandate that it do so. Lawmakers can mitigate separation of powers concerns by declining to prescribe the tenets justices must abide by — instead merely requiring that some tenets exist.

It's a simple thing really: If in any doubt exists, disclose the gift, or recuse if a conflict might exist. Any justice who can't rise to that level of honesty has no business occupying a position of public trust.

But there is one binding thing Congress can do: Approve a constitutional amendment limiting the terms of Supreme Court justices.

It's not a silver bullet reform. Term limits never are. But what such a response would tend to do is limit the hubris, and perhaps the arrogance, of justices who believe they are somehow above the restraints and accountability of lesser government officials.

They are judges – not peers of the realm.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.

READ NEXT: Report: The New York Times Confirms Hunter Biden Whistleblower Claim