Supreme Court associate justice Clarence Thomas “faces growing ethics questions,” The Hill‘s John Kruzel reports, “after recent reports of his wife’s aggressive effort to overturn former President Trump’s electoral defeat and participation in the Jan. 6 ‘Stop the Steal’ rally have renewed scrutiny of the justice’s refusal to step aside from related disputes that have come before the Supreme Court.”

Meanwhile, under pressure from a public beginning to notice the striking correlation between membership in Congress and a sharp eye for the best investments, Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced bills to ban members and their families from buying and selling stocks while in office.

The  overlap of these two sets of ethics problems — a judge’s possible prejudice in favor of his spouse’s views and affiliations versus an elected official’s potential ability to trade (or have a spouse or child trade) stocks based on inside legislative scoop — is the family angle. That creates a third ethics problem running in the other direction.

Virginia Thomas isn’t her husband. She’s neither a Supreme Court justice nor an employee of the federal government. She’s thus presumptively entitled to engage in whatever kind of political speech and advocacy, and affiliate with whatever political organizations, she pleases.

The spouses and children of congresspeople are, likewise, not themselves congresspeople. If they want to invest their money in stocks, bonds, cryptocurrency or losing bets on the Kansas City Chiefs to beat the Cincinnati Bengals (yes, I’m still sore about that), it’s their money and nobody’s business but theirs.

It’s one thing to impose restrictions and guidelines on people who have sought and accepted particular jobs. They agree to those restrictions and guidelines as part of the deal.

It’s another thing entirely to assume such authority over people who haven’t even sought, let alone been offered or accepted, such employment and who, especially in the case of children, may not have even been consulted on the matter of the other person’s political or employment ambitions.

The former makes sense. The latter is just … well, unethical. And while not doing it just because it’s unethical doesn’t solve those other two problems, neither would doing it.

Suppose that the spouses of Supreme Court justices were forbidden to endorse candidates, donate to or work for campaigns, hire on at political organizations, etc. Does anyone believe that such restrictions would stop Virginia Thomas from expressing her opinions to her husband over dinner, or that those opinions would have any less (or more) an effect on his rulings?

Suppose that the spouses and children of congresspeople were forbidden to invest in particular companies. How would that stop those congresspeople from trading their insider information for, say, future “revolving door” employment opportunities, or just having old law school buddies, sisters-in-law, etc. do the investing for them?

For obvious reasons, Virginia Thomas shouldn’t be allowed to argue before the Supreme Court while her spouse sits on it, and Justice Thomas should recuse himself from any cases that represent a plausible conflict of interest due to her affiliations.

Likewise, members of Congress who get caught using their privileged access to information for insider trading, even through proxies, should be punished.

But trying to run these family members’ lives isn’t an ethical, or effective, solution to the problems involved.

What, short of eliminating all these government positions (which I favor), might constitute such a solution? How about a constitutional amendment reserving such positions to unmarried, childless individuals?

That seems like a hard proposal to sell our politicians on. And, as the history of the Holy Roman Catholic Church demonstrates, it comes with its own set of equally intractable problems.

The imperfect, but probably better, solution: Rigorous investigation and harsh enforcement of conflict of interest and insider trading violations where government officials themselves are involved.

Which we’ll probably get about the time flying pigs taxi for their takeoffs from the frozen surface of hell.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

“President Joe Biden and other leaders of the world’s major industrialized democracies pledged action on Thursday  [March 24] to address food shortages caused by Russia’s war on Ukraine,” Politico reports.

Biden says food shortages “are going to be real,” although he seems to see them as an opportunity to increase US grain production and food exports rather than a real threat to Americans’ own well-being.

After a year of continuing his predecessor’s “trade war” policies, Biden seems to be getting some free trade religion, which is nice, but he may be under-estimating the scope of the problem.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine — and the US/EU/NATO sanctions response — doesn’t just up-end the global supply of grain crops  (Russia and Ukraine are both top exporters of wheat) and other foods.

As Reuters reports, it also affects the global supply of the fertilizers that power farming elsewhere. Russia is the world’s top fertilizer exporter, followed by China, a top “trade war” target of the last few years.

What does this mean for Americans? Probably not starvation in the streets, but food prices are going to keep soaring, probably even more so than they have the last couple of years. More of our incomes will go to putting food on the table, and less to other things. We’re getting, in a word, poorer.

If you had the foresight to go full “prepper” years ago — a basement full of freeze-dried meals, a large garden and annual canning operation, etc. — good on you.  Unless things escalate we’re probably not looking at the apocalypse, but you’ve  been vindicated nonetheless.

As for the rest of us, at least a little “prepping” is definitely in order. It’s not too late to start stocking up on canned food BEFORE the next big price increase. And, if you have a yard or access to a community gardening space, to put some food in the ground for harvest later this year.

Personally, I’ve had gardening ambitions for years — I spent part of my childhood on a subsistence farm and enjoyed it — but until last week I limited myself to a little raised bed affair with some salad and stir fry items.

This week I invested in a tiller and an assortment of “heirloom” seeds, with the expectation of getting to work on a much larger garden next week. I’m fortunate to live on a full acre in northern Florida, where I can reasonably expect to get two growing seasons in this year.

If worse comes to worst, doubling up on the cans in your pantry and growing a little romaine for Caesar salads won’t save your life. But if not, they’ll save you some much-needed money in the harder days to come.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

Facing questions during her confirmation hearing before the US Senate on March 22, Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson caught what may be the strangest sort of flak I’ve seen in one of these circuses.

“Do you support, then, the idea that indefinite detention of an enemy combatant is unlawful?” asked US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), referring to Jackson’s representation of detainees held at the US prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the course of that representation, Jackson signed an amicus brief asserting — correctly — that the detainees were entitled to challenge their indefinite detention without trial.

Before storming out of the hearing like one of the kids in Animal House — “you can do whatever you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America” — Graham informed Jackson that according to the brief, the government “would have to release these people or try them and some of them, the evidence we can’t disclose because it’s classified.”

US Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) didn’t have to go as far as the amicus brief in question to come up with an objection. His problem was with Jackson representing those particular clients at all. After doing so as a public defender, he noted, “[s]he volunteered to continue that representation in private practice, which I think is interesting, and frankly, from my point of view, a little concerning.”

As attorneys themselves, it’s reasonable to expect that Graham and Hawley understand what attorneys do — represent clients. But apparently not.

As US Senators, one might also expect that they’d remember their oaths to “support the Constitution of the United States.” No dice there, either, when it comes to the Sixth Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury … to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

When the Gitmo detainees have received “trials” at all, those “trials” haven’t been speedy, or public, or before an impartial jury (the “trials” are secret affairs conducted by military tribunals).

Graham is firmly on record as opposing even that last bit, “Assistance of Counsel”: “When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.” Hawley seems to agree.

Their problem with Jackson is that she did her job — and that, above and beyond doing her job, she supports the Constitution while they oppose it.

That position should disqualify them from holding their Senate seats, not her from taking the SCOTUS bench.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY