The Court's impartiality has come under attack, especially since the accession of the last three conservative justices: Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Since reports of some justices' acceptance of improper gifts gained notoriety and some decisions by the Court that the public viewed as favoring ultraright groups, the public's approval of the Court has declined. Until about 2021, Democratic and Republican approval ratings of the Supreme Court were about the same: 45 percent approval. Two months after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned the 49-year-old Roe v. Wade ruling that guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion, only 39 percent of adults approve of how the Supreme Court handles its job, while 53 percent disapprove. Distrust in the Supreme Court (53 percent) is up 22 percent since 2019. Seventy percent of Republicans, but only 32 percent of Democrats, trust the Supreme Court. Sixty-nine percent of voters feel that the Supreme Court is too mixed up in politics, up by 12 percent since 2019. The public believes the Court's decisions favor ultraright groups and do not reflect the country's values.
In an unprecedented manner, Supreme Court justices are acting in ways that make it appear their decisions are being influenced by the agendas of wealthy donors. Federalist Society, co-founder and operative Leonard Leo has directed an influence campaign at conservative justices to further the agenda of ultra-right billionaires. Justices receive unreported "gifts" from wealthy benefactors worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even if the "gifts" do not constitute bribery legally, most legal analysts point out that they give the appearance of impropriety and favoritism. Justices' behavior has raised two questions. First, why did their billionaire donors manipulate justices' behavior and make these gifts? And second, why did the justices carelessly ignore their moral obligation to the Court and accept these gifts? Regardless of the answers to these questions, the public's view of the justices' impropriety rests on more than getting "gifts" from donors. The public perceives that the Court favors conservative donors and their ideology. The pervasiveness of the gift-giving effort suggests a systematic attempt to influence Supreme Court justices.
In an unprecedented manner, Supreme Court justices are acting in ways that make it appear their decisions are being influenced by the agendas of wealthy donors. Federalist Society, co-founder and operative Leonard Leo has directed an influence campaign at conservative justices to further the agenda of ultra-right billionaires. Justices receive unreported "gifts" from wealthy benefactors worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even if the "gifts" do not constitute bribery legally, most legal analysts point out that they give the appearance of impropriety and favoritism. Justices' behavior has raised two questions. First, why did their billionaire donors manipulate justices' behavior and make these gifts? And second, why did the justices carelessly ignore their moral obligation to the Court and accept these gifts? Regardless of the answers to these questions, the public's view of the justices' impropriety rests on more than getting "gifts" from donors. The public perceives that the Court favors conservative donors and their ideology. The pervasiveness of the gift-giving effort suggests a systematic attempt to influence Supreme Court justices.
Clarence Thomas and His Better Half
Justice Clarence Thomas and Virginia Thomas Charles Dharapak/ AP From what we know about the justices, Clarence Thomas has engaged in the most blatant wrongdoing. Beginning in 2001, Justice Thomas received gifts of a Bible owned by Frederick Douglas ($19,000) and a bust of Abraham Lincoln ($15,000). Later, in 2015, Thomas reported receiving a bronze bust of Frederick Douglass valued at over $6,000 and a "donation" to pay for his adopted son's school fees, estimated by ProPublica at $150,000. Thomas also received a gift of $267,00 for a recreational vehicle, and there is now a question of whether he has paid the appropriate gift taxes. In addition to these personal gifts, Thomas also received "vanity gifts." Harlan Crow donated $175,000 for a Clarence Thomas addition at the library in Thomas' hometown of Pin Point, Georgia. Crow later contributed $1.5 million to the Historical Museum commemorating Thoma's hometown. And in 2018, Crow gave $105,00 to Yale Law School for a Justice Thomas portrait fund. Crow also purchased a house and two nearby lots co-owned by Thomas for over $133,000, $88,000 more than Thomas reported it was worth five years earlier. Crow made $36,000 improvements in the property and allowed Thomas's mother, who had been living in the house, to continue to live in it. Despite a federal law that requires federal officials to disclose most real estate transactions over $1,000, Thomas failed to report it.
Besides these "gifts," Thomas has benefitted from what may be millions of dollars from vacations and other "hospitality" worth millions. In the most exhaustive examination of Thomas's "gift" acceptance, ProPublica showed that benefactors had given him vacations to at least 38 locations. These vacations included trips around the Bahamas, 26 private jet flights, VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, and stays at luxury resorts. The people who provided these benefits were the Horatio Alger Association members who met Thomas after he ascended to the Supreme Court and was tapped for membership in that group.
Thoma's wife, Virginia, a political consultant, has also had substantial earnings from dealings with members of her husband's network of benefactors. Justice Thomas did not disclose these earnings. In 2010, Ginni earned $120,000 as the head of Liberty Central, her consulting firm. Between 2011 and 2012, Leonard Leo, the head of the Federalist Society, funneled about $100,000 to Ginni through Kellyanne Conway's polling firm with instructions to keep Ginni's name from being listed as the recipient. Between 2017 and 2018, Frank Gaffney, a key purveyor of anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, paid Ginni $200,000. Justice Thomas failed to disclose this in his financial filings. One of the critical funders to Gaffney in 2017 was the pro-Trump group Making America Great, funded by Rebekah Mercer, a prominent Trump backer. Thus, hundreds of thousands of dollars flowed from Trump to the Thomas family.
More important than the donations, the money Ginni has received from political networks she is a part of shreds the appearance of propriety. For example, she has used her access to her husband's former law clerks, such as John Eastman, one of the nineteen persons indicted by District Attorney Fani Willis, to advocate and recruit for ultra-right-wing causes. She has also been one of the directors of the dark money group Council for National Policy Action, which connects right-wing donors to right-wing figures and activists. In 2020, Groundswell, a group chaired by Ginni, was instrumental in vetting White House staff to detect potential disloyalty to Trump. Although the group failed to identify Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman before he testified against Trump, the group did mount a smear campaign against Vindman that undermined his career and led to his retirement from the military. Justice Thomas has not recused himself from any cases related to his wife or her political networks.
Justice Thomas reported receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in rental income from Ginni's family real estate firm over the last twenty years. That real estate firm, now known as Ginger Ltd., has not existed since 2006. Between 2003 and 2007, Ginni received $686,000 from the Heritage Foundation. Justice Thomas initially failed to list this income for his wife. Thomas said this failure was due to a misunderstanding of the reporting requirements, even though part of the job of a Supreme Court is understanding requirements. Real estate transactions are well-known for being used to hide illegal payments. They have been widely used for money laundering and to hide cash transfers for illicit purposes. Did ultra-right-wing groups use defunct real estate companies and research organizations to funnel large sums of money to two of its most influential and effective influence agents?
Besides these "gifts," Thomas has benefitted from what may be millions of dollars from vacations and other "hospitality" worth millions. In the most exhaustive examination of Thomas's "gift" acceptance, ProPublica showed that benefactors had given him vacations to at least 38 locations. These vacations included trips around the Bahamas, 26 private jet flights, VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, and stays at luxury resorts. The people who provided these benefits were the Horatio Alger Association members who met Thomas after he ascended to the Supreme Court and was tapped for membership in that group.
Thoma's wife, Virginia, a political consultant, has also had substantial earnings from dealings with members of her husband's network of benefactors. Justice Thomas did not disclose these earnings. In 2010, Ginni earned $120,000 as the head of Liberty Central, her consulting firm. Between 2011 and 2012, Leonard Leo, the head of the Federalist Society, funneled about $100,000 to Ginni through Kellyanne Conway's polling firm with instructions to keep Ginni's name from being listed as the recipient. Between 2017 and 2018, Frank Gaffney, a key purveyor of anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, paid Ginni $200,000. Justice Thomas failed to disclose this in his financial filings. One of the critical funders to Gaffney in 2017 was the pro-Trump group Making America Great, funded by Rebekah Mercer, a prominent Trump backer. Thus, hundreds of thousands of dollars flowed from Trump to the Thomas family.
More important than the donations, the money Ginni has received from political networks she is a part of shreds the appearance of propriety. For example, she has used her access to her husband's former law clerks, such as John Eastman, one of the nineteen persons indicted by District Attorney Fani Willis, to advocate and recruit for ultra-right-wing causes. She has also been one of the directors of the dark money group Council for National Policy Action, which connects right-wing donors to right-wing figures and activists. In 2020, Groundswell, a group chaired by Ginni, was instrumental in vetting White House staff to detect potential disloyalty to Trump. Although the group failed to identify Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman before he testified against Trump, the group did mount a smear campaign against Vindman that undermined his career and led to his retirement from the military. Justice Thomas has not recused himself from any cases related to his wife or her political networks.
Justice Thomas reported receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in rental income from Ginni's family real estate firm over the last twenty years. That real estate firm, now known as Ginger Ltd., has not existed since 2006. Between 2003 and 2007, Ginni received $686,000 from the Heritage Foundation. Justice Thomas initially failed to list this income for his wife. Thomas said this failure was due to a misunderstanding of the reporting requirements, even though part of the job of a Supreme Court is understanding requirements. Real estate transactions are well-known for being used to hide illegal payments. They have been widely used for money laundering and to hide cash transfers for illicit purposes. Did ultra-right-wing groups use defunct real estate companies and research organizations to funnel large sums of money to two of its most influential and effective influence agents?
The Slips and Missteps of Other Justices
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John G. Roberts react during a group portrait at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on Oct. 7, 2022. Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters While Justice Thomas' acceptance of questionable benefactions may be the most glaring among the justices, Chief Justice John Roberts has not had a spotless ethical record. Chief Justice Roberts' wife, Jane, received over $10 million in fees as a headhunter for law firms pursuing lawyers who could practice before the Supreme Court. Job seekers who perform well before the Supreme Court validate the headhunter's expertise and increase the value of the headhunter's efforts. Chief Justice Roberts, thus, has an incentive to support his wife's expertise.
Justice Samuel Alito; Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States Like Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito has also failed to recuse himself from cases in which he and his wife had a financial interest. Appointed to the Court in 2006, Alito disclosed a $500 gift of Italian food in 2007 and noted on the filing that the bestower was unlikely to have a case before the Supreme Court. By 2008, like Justice Thomas, Samuel Alito had accepted a free luxury vacation from Paul Singer, a wealthy Republican donor. Leonard Leo arranged this luxury vacation trip. The vacation trip costs $130,000 for a jet flight to an exclusive $ 1,000-a-day fishing resort. At the time, Singer had a case pending before the Supreme Court from which Alito did not recuse himself. Another wealthy Republican donor, Rob Ackley, and a federal appellate judge, A. Raymond Randolph also accompanied Leo and Singer on this trip. Alito did not disclose this trip despite being required.
Alito disclosed mineral interests between $100,000 and $250,000. After this disclosure, Alito ruled in favor of oil and gas interests, although not the specific companies in which he and his wife had interests. In 2022, Alito's wife, Martha Ann, agreed to lease 160 acres to an oil and gas company for 3/16 (almost 19%) of all the money from extracting oil and gas. Alito then concurred with the conservative majority of the Supreme Court to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. In effect, Alito concurred with decisions that potentially increased his wealth.
Alito disclosed mineral interests between $100,000 and $250,000. After this disclosure, Alito ruled in favor of oil and gas interests, although not the specific companies in which he and his wife had interests. In 2022, Alito's wife, Martha Ann, agreed to lease 160 acres to an oil and gas company for 3/16 (almost 19%) of all the money from extracting oil and gas. Alito then concurred with the conservative majority of the Supreme Court to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. In effect, Alito concurred with decisions that potentially increased his wealth.
Justice Neil Gorsuch Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images Nine days after Neil Gorsuch was confirmed as a justice, he sold a forty-acre tract of land he co-owned. The property had been on the market for two years. After being confirmed by the Senate, Gorsuch sold the land to the head of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation's largest law firms. Greenberg Traurig has an extensive practice before the Supreme Court. So far, Gorsuch has sided with Greenberg Traurig eight out of twelve times. Amy Coney Barrett sold her residence to a member of the Religious Liberty Initiative, a Catholic religious group claiming to promote religious freedom for "everyone." Brenden Wilson, the buyer, paid $905,000 for the house. The Religious Liberty Initiative has filed "friend-of-the-Court" briefs in religious cases before the Court, including Roe v. Wade. The group also funded Justice Alito's trip to Rome to give a speech after Roe was overturned. While all these activities were disclosed and thus did not violate any rules, they raised red flags. We cannot know if the prices paid for the real estate sales were inflated. We do know that real estate is notorious for hiding illicit funds.
The Federalist Society: Leonard Leo's Guiding Light
Leonard Leo The Federalist Society, originally a conservative legal educational group, has developed as the preeminent conservative legal network. Leonard Leo has been the person primarily responsible for its growth and development. Leo has provided an alternative guiding light for the legal establishment by using the Society to establish a social and legal network of ultra-conservative millionaires, lawyers, judges, and legal educators. This network aims to identify conservative legal talent and provide a pipeline to more influential positions in the legal establishment. This network is also a mechanism for vetting and validating lawyers and potential justices. The validation provided by the Federalist Society ensures that justices and judges who are confirmed become firmly locked into legal conservatism. Justices whom Leo has recommended through the Federalist Society have remained steadfast conservatives. Thus, the Federalist Society is an alternative guiding light for a conservative legal establishment. The impetus for this guiding light was the perceived liberal turn of the mainstream legal establishment by conservatives. While the Society still purports to be an educational organization, its real purpose has become being a pipeline for conservative legal talent.
Considering the damage some justices' unethical behavior has done to the Court's standing, commentators have questioned why they have become impervious to their ethical responsibilities. The justices' explanation for their behavior suggests they did not see accepting "gifts" from Republican donors as wrongdoing. Instead, they claimed that these gifts were exempt from being disclosed because they represented hospitality by friends. The hospitality exemption refers to stays in private homes and not staying in expensive resorts or traveling on yachts or private airplanes. The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires a justice to disclose most gifts. The only exception to disclosure is "personal hospitality." Under the Ethics in Government Act, the Judicial Conference, established to administer the Act for the judicial branch, clarified what "personal hospitality" meant. The Judicial Conference declared in March 2023 that personal hospitality excluded hospitality for business purposes by a corporation or organization at any place not owned by the individual or family extending the hospitality. The Judicial Conference also declared that all transportation must be disclosed. Those justices who failed initially to disclose gifts were required to amend their financial statements. Despite these requirements for disclosure, it is now clear that some justices systematically failed to comply. The Supreme Court recently adopted its code of conduct (November 3, 2023). This code says that the justices "should comply" with lower court regulations on what gifts federal judges and their families can accept. However, this code also says that each justice will ensure their adherence to the code.
While some conservatives may feel entitled to ignore these rules because of their affiliation with Leo and the Federalist Society, they may also think they need not fear impeachment and removal. And impeachment and removal are the only viable punishments that can be meted out to miscreant justices. However, because the Federalist Society is an alternative social and legal network, it interprets what is legitimate. The Federalist Society and Leo believe that association between the legal establishment and wealthy Republican donors is permissible.
Considering the damage some justices' unethical behavior has done to the Court's standing, commentators have questioned why they have become impervious to their ethical responsibilities. The justices' explanation for their behavior suggests they did not see accepting "gifts" from Republican donors as wrongdoing. Instead, they claimed that these gifts were exempt from being disclosed because they represented hospitality by friends. The hospitality exemption refers to stays in private homes and not staying in expensive resorts or traveling on yachts or private airplanes. The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires a justice to disclose most gifts. The only exception to disclosure is "personal hospitality." Under the Ethics in Government Act, the Judicial Conference, established to administer the Act for the judicial branch, clarified what "personal hospitality" meant. The Judicial Conference declared in March 2023 that personal hospitality excluded hospitality for business purposes by a corporation or organization at any place not owned by the individual or family extending the hospitality. The Judicial Conference also declared that all transportation must be disclosed. Those justices who failed initially to disclose gifts were required to amend their financial statements. Despite these requirements for disclosure, it is now clear that some justices systematically failed to comply. The Supreme Court recently adopted its code of conduct (November 3, 2023). This code says that the justices "should comply" with lower court regulations on what gifts federal judges and their families can accept. However, this code also says that each justice will ensure their adherence to the code.
While some conservatives may feel entitled to ignore these rules because of their affiliation with Leo and the Federalist Society, they may also think they need not fear impeachment and removal. And impeachment and removal are the only viable punishments that can be meted out to miscreant justices. However, because the Federalist Society is an alternative social and legal network, it interprets what is legitimate. The Federalist Society and Leo believe that association between the legal establishment and wealthy Republican donors is permissible.
Why the Court Is Under Attack
The importance of the Federalist Society to the advancement of conservatives in the legal profession also suggests why conservative justices are willing to deviate from boundaries that mainstream justices are unwilling to trespass. The justices who have either failed to disclose "gifts" or recuse themselves from cases that involve their benefactors offer various defenses for their actions. Generally, they claim that questions raised about their failure to disclose these gifts are due to unwarranted attacks by liberals. Specifically, Justice Thomas also claimed that he was unaware that some "gifts" should have been revealed. The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges does not apply to the Supreme Court justices. However, it does apply to all other U.S. judges and is a helpful guide for assessing the ethics of Supreme Court justices. The code says that "a judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary…a judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment." Even if the conduct of these Justices does not rise to the level of non-compliance with the law, the code says that "a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities." Many Americans expect such ethical standards to apply to these "Supreme" justices. The justices and their defenders also claim the rewards reaped by the justices' wives result from the meritocratic success of their independent wives. Of course, spouses must be able to maintain their careers. However, justices benefit from their spouses and thus may be tempted by their success. The amounts, purposes, and duration of the "gifts" Thomas, Alito, and their wives have accepted without disclosure make it difficult to rule out the possibility that they have been subject to attempted bribery.
Why Donors Give Disguised "Gifts"
Donors give disguised gifts to justices to affect the outcome of cases the Court hears. However, the preferences of the conservative justices are well known and favor the results desired by the donors. Thus, it is unclear why donors would need to give conservative justice gifts. One commentator believes that the donors gave "gifts" to the justices and their families to ensure they remain bound to conservatism. Progressive political commentator and author Thomas Hartmann has proposed that Republican donors are motivated to give conservative justices luxury gifts to ensure their continued allegiance to conservative ideology. Hartmann argues that the right wing was frustrated by the disaffection of conservative justices who became more liberal on the Supreme Court. These justices include Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. On the Court, over time, these justices voted more with the liberal justices than the conservative justices. According to Hartmann, right-wing billionaires sought to stop conservative justices from shifting to liberalism. They use their money for "gifts" to encapsulate conservative justices in a cocoon of privilege and wealth. Thus, the vacations and other "gifts" are intended to make it more difficult for the justices to renounce conservatism.
Hartmann's contention that benefactors are trying to prevent conservatives from turning liberal seems powerful—some Republican Presidents appointed justices who joined liberal justices in pivotal decisions. However, Hartmann's explanation fails to consider two changes in the legal environment: the existence of the Federalist Society and the willingness of the members it advances to engage in result-oriented legal decision-making, although it means ignoring facts and pertinent precedents. The Federalist Society advances members they have vetted to ensure they share an ultra-conservative vision of Society and are willing to use their power to realize it. None of the conservative justices who joined decisions that aggrieved conservatives, e.g., Roe v. Wade, were appointed after the presence of the Society. Of the six conservative justices now on the Court, only one was not embedded and vetted by the Federalist Society: Clarence Thomas. Thomas established his bona fides by marrying the daughter of conservative parents who supported the John Birch Society and herself a conservative operative. In addition, Thomas had espoused personal animosity toward the mainstream legal establishment. Fishing trips hardly seemed necessary to keep these justices towing the conservative line. Hartmann's explanation for why donors shower gifts on Supreme Court justices is also built on the assumption that public awareness of judicial decision-making will minimize the opportunity to bribe justices. But the influence that a justice could have in influencing the outcome of a decision goes beyond his vote. When the Supreme Court is pretty evenly divided between justices who adhere to the facts and precedent and those whose decisions are intended to achieve specific results, information concerning which considerations might sway a justice is precious. Before the accession of the last three conservative justices, such information could have been critical in formulating case strategies. Justice Thomas, for example, while attending fundraising events for the group Stand Together (part of the political advocacy Koch Network), gave speeches and was present when network members were planning litigation strategies and identifying cases that could be used to bolster conservative positions in Supreme Court deliberations.
Also, it is not always possible for the public to know what considerations are involved in judicial decision-making. Although justices must lay out their reasoning in reaching a decision when both sides present their arguments before the Court, there is one procedural mechanism, the shadow docket, where this is no longer done. Initially, the shadow docket was used for scheduling, issuing injunctions, and other procedural matters that were not controversial. When the Court was not in session, the shadow docket was used to grant emergency relief as in death penalty cases. Through the seventies, when a controversial case was considered, a justice assigned to the case took oral argument and explained his reasoning in his decision. Beginning in the eighties, after the Court stopped adjourning, justices started working collectively on the cases in the shadow docket. Also, they stopped holding hearings to hear evidence from both sides or considering amicus briefs. Since the accession of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, when the Court turned solidly conservative, it has begun to hear more cases and more contentious cases on the shadow docket than it previously had. This increase is due, in part, to the Trump Administration asking the Court 41 times for emergency relief.
Without any underlying reasoning justifying their decisions, the public's perception that these decisions favor conservative ideology and donors is well-founded. In one case, the Supreme Court let stand a Texas law that barred at least 85 percent of abortions. The Supreme Court's failure to block the effect of the law was done without hearing from either the litigants or friends of the Court. Thus, the justices could not fully understand all the consequences of their failure to stay the law. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court struck down several state regulations based on the best science available and established to protect the public's health. In Tandon v. Newsome, the Court struck down rules against at-home gatherings because the law discriminated against religion by preventing at-home bible study. In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, the Court struck down a law that closed indoor worship in high-infection areas. In the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, the Court stopped capacity restrictions in houses of worship. Despite the importance of these cases and Chief Justice Roberts' expressed concern that the shadow docket was being misused, Justice Alito denied that the shadow docket was being used to change the law in significant ways. The Court seems unlikely to change this procedure.
More Reforms than Ethics Are Needed
We expect the decisions made by justices to reflect the ideology of the presidents who appointed them, at least since the Reagan Administration. The similarity between decisions and ideology exists for two reasons. First, the justices may let their preferences guide their decisions. Second, the justices want their opinions to be consistent with their previous views. But we also expect the justices to avoid results-oriented decision-making. We also expect justices to weigh the evidence and reach conclusions, not to search for evidence or use procedures that favor groups they support, like the ultra-right Republican donors. We do not want them to appear to select outcomes that correspond to their favored groups. We do not wish them to reach decisions that favor groups they support consistently.
Many observers admit that the Supreme Court needs ethics reform. However, accomplishing reform in a polarized and evenly split political system is problematic. The Constitution, for example, presents only one remedy for wrongdoing: impeachment in the House of Representatives and, if convicted in the Senate, removal from office. Because the political system is polarized, reaching the two-thirds majority needed for conviction in the Senate seems nearly impossible. Further, political polarization means that justices are selected to advance the interests of the nominating side with the votes to confirm. Thus, the perception of fairness will be challenging to maintain.
Most importantly, with a polarized government, one side may feel so aggrieved they will try to influence the Court for redress. Attempts at controlling the justices may devolve into unethical means. If the side using unethical means is also favored by some justices, the perception of actual or perceived favoritism may prevail.
Any attempt at reforming the Court will have to address political polarization. One method of managing the influence of problems has been featured in the President's Commission on the Supreme Court. The nine Supreme Court justices could be rotated yearly from the pool of 180 federal appellate justices. The nine Supreme Court justices would revert to the appellate Court. Those in good standing would be eligible for random selection to either the Supreme Court or an administrative court, also randomly selected from the appellate bench, which would determine the cases to be heard.
Several justices are using the Supreme Court for their benefit. Although these justices were required to disclose the "gifts" they received, in some cases, they have failed to reveal them or recuse themselves from cases involving their benefactors. The pattern of gift-giving that these benefactors employed suggests that they systematically attempted to influence the Court. The pervasiveness of their efforts to influence the justices indicates that more than ethics reform is needed. The very structure of the Supreme Court must be reformed to ensure that it will regain the esteem it once held.
Many observers admit that the Supreme Court needs ethics reform. However, accomplishing reform in a polarized and evenly split political system is problematic. The Constitution, for example, presents only one remedy for wrongdoing: impeachment in the House of Representatives and, if convicted in the Senate, removal from office. Because the political system is polarized, reaching the two-thirds majority needed for conviction in the Senate seems nearly impossible. Further, political polarization means that justices are selected to advance the interests of the nominating side with the votes to confirm. Thus, the perception of fairness will be challenging to maintain.
Most importantly, with a polarized government, one side may feel so aggrieved they will try to influence the Court for redress. Attempts at controlling the justices may devolve into unethical means. If the side using unethical means is also favored by some justices, the perception of actual or perceived favoritism may prevail.
Any attempt at reforming the Court will have to address political polarization. One method of managing the influence of problems has been featured in the President's Commission on the Supreme Court. The nine Supreme Court justices could be rotated yearly from the pool of 180 federal appellate justices. The nine Supreme Court justices would revert to the appellate Court. Those in good standing would be eligible for random selection to either the Supreme Court or an administrative court, also randomly selected from the appellate bench, which would determine the cases to be heard.
Several justices are using the Supreme Court for their benefit. Although these justices were required to disclose the "gifts" they received, in some cases, they have failed to reveal them or recuse themselves from cases involving their benefactors. The pattern of gift-giving that these benefactors employed suggests that they systematically attempted to influence the Court. The pervasiveness of their efforts to influence the justices indicates that more than ethics reform is needed. The very structure of the Supreme Court must be reformed to ensure that it will regain the esteem it once held.