Thomas may be the most benefited by the purportedly disinterested kindness of others, but he isn't the only Justice who has accepted gifts, free travel, free food, free lodging and various other freebies and perks, nor is he the only one who has been less than candid or forthcoming in disclosing them. Nonetheless, it's claimed by them and others that there is no cause for concern.
It may well be the case that there's nothing illegal about this conduct. The Supreme Court has not been especially zealous in upholding ethical standards in ruling on cases in which claims are made that public officials have misused their offices, especially when the claims are based on "gifts" made to them which were followed by favors granted to the "donors." The narrowness of the Court's construction of statutory language and its disregard of the potential consequences of its decisions is notable in this respect. When it's interpretation is broad, it seems that it has sanctioned the spending of money on the wants and needs of politicians and public officials. Thus, for example, the spending of money has become a form of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, and a private jet has been defined by one Justice as a "facility" in a self-serving defense of his acceptance of free travel. It therefore isn't surprising that the Justices are disinclined to take seriously the influence of money on their conduct.
There's certainly nothing unusual about laws and codes of ethics which prohibit public officials from accepting gifts. They're common, in fact. But they don't prohibit specific conduct only on ethical grounds. They also provide that officials should avoid even "the appearance of impropriety."
But those defending the Justices, and it seems the Justices themselves, also narrowly define what constitutes "the appearance of impropriety." It's difficult, for me at least, to believe that someone who benefits so much from money spent on them would not feel beholden to those who are so generous. That feeling would, I believe, influence conduct towards them, if only as a matter of personal honor. The fact that those who pay for the gravy train on which they ride don't have matters immediately before the Court, or if they do don't discuss them with the passenger on the train, doesn't mean that the passenger is not or will not be favorably disposed towards them or the matters in which they have an interest. It's naive to think otherwise.
If it's maintained that no appearance of impropriety arises, though, why would that be the case? If a person spends huge amounts of money on you for your enjoyment and benefit and you feel no obligation to them, are not inclined to do anything for them in return, then you're a moocher. Your a person who lives off of others without giving them anything in return. You exploit the generosity of others; you seek out and obtain handouts. You mooch off others. You're the type of person Cab Calloway sang about.
Moochers aren't admirable people. A person who mooches has no honor, feels no obligation, has no respect for others. A moocher delights in receiving unearned benefits. Moochers are selfish and self-centered. Moochers are exceedingly self-indulgent.
Perhaps, then, public officials like the Justices in question don't violate the law, and if they are unethical are so merely because they're moochers. Maybe they simply enjoy having their expenses paid by others and receiving a great deal of something for nothing, and feel no shame in doing so.
That would make them only unsavory, or disreputable. Perhaps that's the best we can expect of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment