Posted on June 28, 2023



Let's Get Ethical

Screening the Supreme Court for corruption


Daniel Clark



Since last year's Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the Democrats and therefore the news media have developed ethical concerns about the Supreme Court that they had mysteriously never considered before. All of a sudden, the justices, or at least the conservative ones, have come under fire for their personal friendships, financial transactions, and all sorts of things that had never been at issue before.

It would make things a whole lot simpler if the self-appointed judicial ethics police would take a look at the other end of the alleged transgressions. If a Supreme Court justice is corrupt, then the result must be in the form of opinions that have been corrupted, which is to say, those that are unfaithful to the Constitution. After all, nobody needs to bribe the justices to hand down constitutionally correct rulings. That's what they're supposed to do anyway. Therefore, if Clarence Thomas, who has borne the brunt of the scrutiny, were conducting himself in an unethical manner, then his detractors ought to be able to demonstrate his many offenses against the Constitution. If, on the other hand, he has consistently, correctly interpreted the law, as they know he has, then they must conclude that he has not been compromised.

Therefore, in order to spare those hardworking Democrat opposition researchers a lot of time and effort, here is a convenient guide that a Supreme Court justice may use to determine, based on the results, whether he or she is corrupt:

* If, when judicial precedent conflicts with the actual language of the Constitution, you side with precedent;

* If you subscribe to the "living Constitution" paradigm, by which you assume that the Constitution spontaneously amends itself at your convenience;

* If you argue that the precedents you prefer must be granted absolute permanency in accordance with stare decisis, while also maintaining that they are based on a Constitution that is constantly evolving;

* If you've read the independent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," and expressed uncertainty about what in the world that could possibly mean;

* If you believe a constitutional right may be overridden just as long as a state government argues that it has a "compelling interest" in doing so;

* If you creatively paraphrase clauses from the Constitution in order to expand them to mean things they don't, such as the morphing of "public use" into "public purpose" in the Kelo v. New London eminent domain case, which was done to justify a forcible transfer of property on the basis that the new owners would pay more in property taxes;

* If you claim to have found a "fundamental constitutional right" in a "penumbra," or shadowy area of the Constitution;

* If you profess to believe in the concept of "incorporation," by which a constitutional provision that is only specified to apply to Congress is presumed to extend to all levels of government right down to public schools, even though the Constitution goes out of its way not to say so;

* If you have interpreted the power of Congress to regulate interstate "commerce" -- meaning the large-scale trading of commodities -- in such a way as to grant the federal government control over any activity that might result in a dollar changing hands;

* If you interpret the word "speech" to encompass, among other things, the act of setting fire to something;

* If you read the Eighth Amendment as if it prohibits punishments that are merely cruel or unusual instead of both cruel and unusual, because you imagine that our founders were concerned about the well-being of criminals, instead of equal justice under the law;

* If, in the dissenting opinion from the Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, you justified the fabrication of a phony constitutional right by denouncing those who wrote and ratified the Constitution as sexists;

* If you agree with the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade that it is not necessary to determine when life begins in order to declare a right to kill millions of creatures that, by your own admission, might be people;

then, you are guilty.

Supreme Court justices are required to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and specifically to take this obligation without any purpose of evasion. The examples listed above are evasions. If liberals were really determined to hold the justices accountable for unethical behavior, which they assuredly are not, they would start here.



Return to Shinbone

 The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press 

 Mailbag . Issue Index . Politimals . College Football Czar