Daily Herald opinion: If this is what the Supreme Court calls 'due diligence' on ethics, it's clearly not enough

Is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas an ethically challenged outlier on the court or just an easy target?

It's hard to answer that question because the court has no serious ethics policy. Its closest claim to adherence to such a code is a nonbinding statement that its members generally follow the code of ethics required of all lower-court federal judges.

So, as he faces yet more publicity about questionable activities, Thomas can point with accuracy - if not a straight face - to words of support from Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society leader who arranged his undisclosed appearance at a 2018 fundraiser for the political organization known as Stand Together run by the conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch.

"All the necessary due diligence was performed to ensure the justice's attendance at the events was compliant with all ethics requirements," Leo told Pro Publica, the online news site that reported the event last week.

Due diligence? What does that mean when applied to an organization with no foundational ethics code?

Leo and other Thomas supporters insist that the justice's appearance at Koch Brothers events is consistent with, to quote Gretchen Reiter, a spokeswoman for Stand Together, "a long tradition of public officials, including Supreme Court justices, sharing their experiences, ideas and judicial philosophy with members of the public."

"Our events," Reiter insisted, "are no different."

The truth of that assertion is hard to imagine. It is one thing for a public official to conduct a book tour or address an association or public gathering, even if highly partisan, and quite another for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice to serve as an acknowledged and unrepentant main attraction for a political fundraiser.

If that indeed is acceptable ethical behavior for this or any court, that's all the more justification for calls for stricter rules of behavior.

The United States Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in the country. That its members do not find it shameful that a group with such prestige fails to abide by standards of behavior that are beyond reproach is an alarming disappointment.

At least Justice Brett Kavanaugh has recently said he is "hopeful" the court will take "concrete steps" toward clearer statements on what constitutes ethical behavior. That's a start, but one can't help wondering, given the responses from most of the justices to the steady stream of questionable behaviors being reported, just how far short of helping partisan political organizations raise money those steps will fall. Organizations, by the way, like Stand Together whose members have business before the court.

As for the claim that generally acknowledging lower-court standards is enough "due diligence" to earn the public's confidence in a Supreme Court justice, the reflections of one lower-court jurist on the newest Thomas revelations are telling.

John E. Jones III, a retired federal judge appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, told Pro Publica that if he had done what Thomas did, "I'd have gotten a letter that would've commenced a disciplinary hearing."

Thomas's mailbox, like his conscience and that of his high court colleagues, appears to be free of any such sanction.

That should not be.