Daily Herald opinion: High court's pompous disregard for clear ethical rules shows why they are needed

A sad fact of contemporary American political life is that it may be impossible to conduct a civil and constructive conversation about issues related to the ethical standards that ought to apply to members of the highest court in the land.

Yet, reasonable people must try.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to conduct hearings this week on ethics standards for the Supreme Court. The hearings follow news reports about lavish gifts given to and accepted by Justice Clarence Thomas. Critics contend the reports were politically motivated, a response that is not in itself unreasonable. After all, it appears Thomas has been receiving the gifts and expensive travel for many years, and it is only now, at a time of deep division and controversy involving the court, that these displays of what Thomas called "personal hospitality" have come to light.

Yet, whatever the source or intent of the reports, it also is not unreasonable - indeed seems entirely natural - that such largesse to a powerful public leader would raise questions and concerns leading to expectations of clear, compulsory standards of what is acceptable, what is unacceptable and why.

Distressingly, the court itself does not share such expectations. And, the nine justices seem to see no need for unequivocal ethical standards. In a rare show of unity, they all signed a "Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices" essentially declaring just that.

The statement, attached to a letter from Chief Justice John Roberts to Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard Durbin declining an invitation to answer questions on the subject, points meekly to a process established in 1922 to provide "guidance" to all federal judicial appointees except those of the Supreme Court. The 1,464-word statement takes pains to make clear that these "canons ... are not themselves rules," and "judges may reasonably differ in their interpretation."

Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, responded that the court's statement "raises more questions than it resolves." He appealed to Roberts, also reasonably, that the chief justice's answers to some of these questions would help the committee as it considers what, if any, legislation should be pursued. As things stand, such answers will not likely be forthcoming.

That is unfortunate on many levels. In purely practical terms, it leaves to political speculation the matter of what standards Supreme Court justices should follow. In political terms, it ensures that such discussions will likely veer into the partisan ruts that seem to guide all significant policy examinations these days.

Meanwhile, the members of the highest court in the United States will remain, at a time of extremely low public faith in their integrity, bound only, as they unanimously acknowledge, to their whim as to what should be acceptable and what should not. That is hardly a situation that inspires confidence, and it comes at a time when we could desperately use a show of affirmative self-reflection from the court.

Indeed, its members' united unwillingness to provide that demonstration may be the clearest expression of why such standards are necessary.