Perhaps this is the question U.S. senators should have been asking Supreme Court nominees all along: “How many undisclosed lavish perks do you plan to accept from billionaires with business before the court?”
As we learned earlier about Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito sees no problem with wallowing in luxurious amenities from billionaires with business before the court. In the most recent revelation by ProPublica, the public learned that Alito took a freebie 2008 trip to an Alaskan luxury fishing lodge that charged more than $1,000 a day, getting there on a private jet provided by hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, who later had cases in front of the Supreme Court asking for rulings that could, and did, further enrich him — cases from which Alito did not recuse himself.
It’s a story similar to what ProPublica reported in April — that Justice Thomas for more than two decades took undisclosed globe-trotting luxury trips that were hosted or paid for by Harlan Crow, a Dallas businessman who is a big-time Republican donor and who also had business before the court.
Along for junkets with both Thomas and Alito was Leonard Leo, the longtime leader of the conservative Federalist Society, an organization that has been instrumental in picking nominees for the Supreme Court. Leo organized the Alaska trip. Neither Thomas nor Alito reported their junkets on disclosure forms.
And earlier, there was the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who blithely took nice hunting trips with people who had interests in cases before the high court.
Who says all that is OK? The justices do. Are there more sensational splurges justices have received we haven’t heard about? Hard to know, if the justices don’t see a need to report them.
Meanwhile, all sorts of federal workers and local politicians are expected to fill out financial disclosure forms. Wouldn’t they love the ability to announce that, in their cases, it’s no longer necessary?
No wonder public confidence in the court is at a historic low of 25%, according to a June Gallup survey that ended just as ProPublica’s reporting was published. We wonder what the numbers would be now.
A more than troubling defense
In recent years, the Supreme Court has handed down rulings such as Citizens United that have had the effect of helping those with ultra-deep pockets pour money into the political campaigns of candidates who, if victorious, will be in a position to make those donors even richer. In their so-called originalist interpretations of the Constitution, do these justices believe the framers’ intent was to make the United States resemble the monarchies of Europe, where the reins of power were held by the rich and entitled?
The Supreme Court ought to be the place where justices dispassionately and thoughtfully rule on cases that affect Americans’ lives across the country. The justices, who have lifetime appointments, should never allow even the appearance of powerful people putting their thumbs on the scales of justice.
Alito’s defense was more than troubling. He said there was a vacant seat on a private jet that could have cost him more than $100,000 one-way if he paid for it himself. Did he ask himself why he was offered that seat instead of someone who was in no position to make rulings that could further enrich a billionaire? Try persuading the CTA or Metra to allow you to hop aboard without paying because there are unused seats.
Moreover, does Alito not think average Americans would love an invitation to a “comfortable but rustic facility” that cost more than $1,000 a day back in 2008? But who could they do favors for? Alito’s remarks were not off the cuff, when people sometimes fumble their stated positions, but rather in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that the newspaper published even before ProPublica’s report came out.
The latest revelations make it clear the Supreme Court must have ethical reform. The justices should be required to abide by the same ethical standards as federal judges elsewhere in the system. A Supreme Court code of conduct is long overdue.
As Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said after the Alito revelation, “There is something rotten going on in the Supreme Court of the United States of America.”
Durbin also called Alito’s defense “laughable.”
Alito said he had no way of knowing Paul Singer was behind the cases that came in front of him on the court. But Singer’s name was repeatedly in stories and headlines in news media reports about the cases.
In an ironic twist, Alito has complained: “Nobody, practically nobody, is defending [the court].”
Well, maybe if the court let everyone share in posh billionaire-paid trips, the justices might get all sorts of enthusiastic support.
We welcome letters to the editor and op-eds. Check out our guidelines for both.
Send letters to letters@suntimes.com
