Supreme Court's new code is a necessary guide, but still leaves much to interpretation

It took a fair bit of public clamor and some congressional pressure, but the U.S. Supreme Court issued this week an eight-page "Code of Conduct," setting out a foundation of standards intended to reassure the public that justices know they must be above reproach in the way they handle themselves inside and outside the courtroom.

That they did so is a welcome acknowledgment of the legitimate questions raised regarding gifts, trips and other "personal hospitality" lavished on some members by wealthy political donors whom they consider friends. And the code the nine justices produced and signed is a fairly comprehensive outline, including references to everything from the management of court offices to financial reporting, speaking engagements and public appearances, political activities and more.

Yet, there is much still left open to interpretation - as the justices recognize in a six-page commentary following the presentation of the code itself.

"It is not always clear ... whether particular conduct undermines, promotes, or has no effect on public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary ... or whether a Justice has acted in a patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous manner ..." the commentary states. "This concern is heightened with respect to Canons applicable to Justices of the Supreme Court ... These Canons must be understood in that light."

This is, of course, true. But the responsibility for such understanding falls on both observers of the court and the justices themselves.

It would be interesting to hear the jurists describe how Justice Clarence Thomas's acknowledged frequent and unreported vacations paid for by a billionaire friend and political donor jibe with the code's call for justices to report "non-governmental income, investments, gifts and reimbursements from third parties."

Thomas called these unreportable "personal hospitality." There are other legitimate interpretations.

Thomas, Samuel Alito and other justices have offered similar defenses in response to questions about specific gifts and speaking engagements that at least raise eyebrows among independent court watchers. What they seem to miss, if not deliberately ignore, and what the court's defensive introduction to the code seems to sidestep is the limited distinction between appearance of an ethical breach and an outright breach.

This new code offers much to define the latter; however, it also provides broad lattitude in assessing the former, which can be equally important when one is talking about trust in members of the nation's highest judicial body.

In its conclusion, the commentary does leave open a door to further reflection on whether "amendments to (the) rules" may be advisable. That is a door justices would be wise to walk through.