Daily Herald opinion: Whether in state legislature or U.S. Supreme Court, ethics should not be partisan

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, has announced that his committee will vote this week on legislation intended to clarify ethics issues involving the Supreme Court.

How expecting the highest court in the nation to establish and hold its members to the strictest possible codes of conduct could become a partisan political issue is a bewildering and disappointing notion to contemplate. Yet, here we are.

Except for the scope of the agency, it's not so different a spot as that in which frustrated Illinoisans find themselves as they clamor for stronger ethics rules for state lawmakers, while majority Democrats sniff that they've done quite enough in that regard, thank you.

And, of course, except for the parties who make up both sides of the political divide. In the case of the high court, it's generally Republicans fighting back against calls for greater accountability.

Again we ask, why are expectations for clear ethics rules and standards of accountability in a democratic government politically controversial?

In recent months, numerous reports have raised questions about the propriety of trips and gifts provided to various Supreme Court justices. Instead of recognizing the seriousness of these issues and offering to examine its ethics code to reassure Americans who may be uncomfortable with justices' actions, the court issued a statement signed by all nine members declaring that, to paraphrase a famous movie line involving presumed lawmen whose authority is questioned, they don't need no stinkin' ethics rules. The letter said justices already adhere, more or less, to rules established for lower court judges.

With each report of eyebrow-raising behaviors - including a billionaire's purchase of a justice's mother's home, trips provided gratis to expensive vacations, sales of property to individuals with business before the court

At a time when confidence in the Supreme Court is at historic lows, this defensive arrogance is not the attitude justices should be displaying, no more than defensive shows of power should be the attitude taken by Illinois lawmakers.

There are, to be sure, political and constitutional hurdles facing the Senate proposal. A partisan divide could result in the need for 60 votes to break a filibuster just to get a vote on the legislation. There seems little likelihood any measure could get through the Republican-controlled House. And even if a measure demanding the court establish ethics guidelines did manage to make it through both chambers and get the president's signature, it almost certainly would wind up before the Supreme Court - yes, the one that already has unanimously said it doesn't need tougher ethics rules - on constitutional issues of separation of powers.

All this could be avoided, along with a surely contentious and divisive political debate, if the court would just wake up and recognize that people have legitimate concerns about the ethics situations that already have arisen and others that could.

"To hold these nine justices to the same standard as every other federal judge is not a radical or partisan notion," said Durbin and the co-sponsor of a Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparecy Act in a joint statement. "Since the Court won't act, Congress will."

Maybe it will try, and maybe it will be right to do so. But if it comes to that, there will be no winner in the end, whatever the outcome.