There is a difference between accountability and retribution.
Accountability means you are subject to the consequences of your actions. You back into a car in the parking lot, you pay your deductible and probably see your insurance premium go up. You miss your credit card payment and have to pay a late fee. You make a mistake on your taxes, and you get audited.
Retribution is similarly punishment for a mistake. It just sometimes isn’t your mistake. It’s an eye-for-an-eye return that might be inflicted on you because of someone else’s deed. Think of the kid treated like a thief at a store because another teenager stole something.
That is why there should be judicial reform, up to and including accountability for the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s why there should also be more concrete parameters around all elected and appointed officials specifically spelling out what is acceptable, what is not and what the consequences are.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee had a hearing on that topic. It focused on ethical guidelines that have been proposed in the aftermath of ongoing revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas and financial entanglements with Dallas billionaire Harlan Crow.
Thomas has not revealed the extent of gifts he has received from Crow for decades, including vacations, private jet travel, the purchase of real estate and, in the latest ProPublica investigation, approximately $100,000 in private school tuition for Thomas’s legal ward.
The revelations have prompted questions about judicial accountability for the nation’s top court. As all things in Washington do, this has boiled down to politics. The Democrats just want transparency and ethics, they say. The Republicans maintain that this is a blatant attack on a right-leaning court.
If it sounds very much like the same song sung about Donald Trump’s indictment or impeachment, you’re not wrong. It’s also a rousing remake of the Bill Clinton impeachment. It also has a refrain of commentary about George W. Bush and Barack Obama. It has an air of demands for multiple legislators to step down over various faux pas.
That is because everyone wants accountability until it is their guy on the hot seat.
It should go without saying that there should be iron-clad ethics requirements of a justice with a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court. The fact that anyone is fighting this is ludicrous. The problem is the timing.
So much of this push is about creating guidelines while simultaneously looking at Thomas’ actions over decades. During the hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., brought up a donation the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made to the National Organization for Women in 1998. While the court is all about precedent, you can’t move forward while still fighting about what happened in the past.
In Pennsylvania, sitting county commissioners don’t get to give themselves raises. They set salaries for the next group of commissioners to be elected — which may or may not include them. That avoids a problem like state legislators had in 2005 with the notorious “midnight pay raise.”
If it really wants to reform ethics, the Judiciary Committee should look to change the rules on the road ahead, which might affect liberal, conservative or centrist judges alike. And Congress should consider doing the same for all elected officials in the name of accountability over retribution.
(Lori Falce is a Tribune-Review community engagement editor. You can contact Lori at lfalce@triblive.com.)
