Raising a family in the 60’s and 70’s, I often found myself seeking out part time employment  to help make ends meet.  One job that was especially appealing was that of Little League umpire, for it allowed me to take part in a sport I loved, to work with youngsters, and to pull down the princely sum of $8.00 per game.

As a police officer, though, I had to clear the administrative hurdle of requesting approval from my employer before I could take my stance behind home plate.  The purpose, of course, was to make certain there would be no conflict between my calling balls and strikes for 10-year olds, and unbiased enforcement of the law in my real job.

Many years later, I was tasked with making the travel and associated arrangements for a senior Federal law enforcement official who had, graciously, accepted our invitation to speak at a conference we were organizing.  Pleased though we were that he would join us, I was taken aback by the eleven page questionnaire I had to complete in order for him to attend.  Eleven pages!

Among the queries were … will he be receiving a meal? … who is providing the meal? … what is the value of the meal? … will he be receiving an award? … what is the value? … what is the cost of travel and lodging? … who is paying for the travel and lodging?  While tedious, the purpose of this inquiry was to assure that nothing of value might be offered or accepted that could give rise to even the slightest appearance that this government official might be beholden to some person or institution.

Reflecting back upon the hoops I had to jump through as a young police officer seeking to officiate baseball games and, later, as organizer for a law enforcement gathering, recent events make me wonder whether certain government officials in positions of public trust cleave to an equally rigorous ethical standard.  I am talking, of course, about the United States Supreme Court, and recent reports that this august body might not be as, well, honorable as it claims to be.

As this matter unfolded, questions were raised, initially, about possible ethical missteps by only one or two members.  Gradually, though, more issues surfaced, with each begging further elaboration.  For example, the sale or purchase of property … acceptance of trips and vacations … sources of spousal income … failing to recuse after accepting gifts from individuals with matters before the court … and overall lack of transparency regarding financial disclosures.

The crux of the matter here, of course, is simple: though we expect every decision handed down by the “highest court in the land” to be based entirely on thoughtful and objective consideration of the facts, there will always remain a modicum of doubt about the motivation of any justice who may have benefitted from the largesse of an individual with an interest in the case at hand.

In 1951, Judge Irving Kaufman presided over the espionage trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.  This widely respected federal magistrate spoke, this way, of the imperative connection of ethics to our judicial system:

The supreme court’s only armor is the cloak of public trust; its sole ammunition the collective hopes of our society.

More recently (Dallas Morning News, July 7, 2023) retired Texas District Court Judge Jerry Calhoon provided an eloquent, thoughtful and first hand appraisal of the issues at the very heart of this current debacle:

When I became judge of the 349th District Court of our state, I received an invitation to an annual fish camp gathering of attorneys for a weekend at the lake.  Although it came from a former classmate, I politely declined, reasoning that having never been invited before it was only my ascension to the bench that drew the invitation.  I wished to avoid any appearance of impropriety that the judicial ethics of our state requires.

Justices of the Supreme Court accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of benefits from donors having interest in the workings of the court boggles my mind.  Then to read that some in the media think the only problem is their failure to report as the law requires makes me wonder what universe I live in.

Acceptance of these benefits is the problem.  Does anyone believe for a minute that these gifts were bestowed because of the scintillating wit or pleasing personalities their presence would bring to the gathering of the donor’s acquaintances?

I once was proud to be a member of the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Now I feel as if my certificate of admittance has been denigrated by these justices.

Using the Hebrew word signifying truth or agreement, I can only add … Amen.