Justice Clarence Thomas of the U S Supreme Court has been receiving benefits from very wealthy people.  Many of those benefits would exceed in value that of a Rolex watch or an Hermès handbag.  He did not disclose the receipt of any such benefits.  He says that he is surprised people are critical of his conduct.

That is worrying.

First, a judge holds a public office of trust.  It is hard to think of a public office more demanding of the utmost good faith.  People who hold such an office are liable to account if they accept a benefit that comes to them because they hold such an office – even if their conduct is not otherwise blameworthy.  It is worse when they make a practice of it and mould their lifestyle accordingly.  I need not cite authority for those propositions as a matter of law.  They are accepted practice in a mature parliamentary democracy that is founded on the common law, including the principles of equity.  The general rule is that ‘anyone who occupies a fiduciary position owes a paramount duty not to use his position for the purpose of acquiring an advantage for himself.’   The reason is simple.  Such people are there to look after others, not themselves.  (In the New York Times, Maureen Dowd referred to an aide to President Eisenhower.  He accepted a vicuña coat from a Boston textile manufacturer doing business with the federal government.  He lost his job and scarred his reputation.)

Secondly, when these gifts become known, it brings the court into disrepute.  There need not be any evidence that the justice has been compromised and persuaded to decide in favour of those associated with the donors.  This justice was appointed by the Republicans.  They are more associated with protecting the interests of the wealthy and limiting the reach of government than Democrats.  People on the Democrat side are more likely to distrust such a justice – and the court as a whole.  Imagine the uproar if a Democrat nominee was found to have received gifts of this magnitude over years from trade unions, charities, or political interest groups.  It is for that reason that judges must not just be spotless, but be seen to be spotless.  This is definitive Caesar’s wife territory.

Thirdly, and speaking of wives, the wife of Justice Thomas was a very substantial beneficiary of these gifts.  Her track record of partisan political activist was embarrassing enough for the court without this further fall from grace.  The family as a whole gives the impression of seeing themselves as above convention, if not the law.  And that is without referring to the blot on the name of this judge that goes back to events leading to his appointment – a problem he does not suffer alone on the court.

Fourthly, the Justice is wont to show himself as someone who has come up the hard way and can therefore be a light unto the poor and downtrodden.  In American argot, that is fake.  In ours, his Honour is a bullshit artist.

Finally, there is the superior hauteur with which the patricians of the judiciary refuse to condescend to be bound by rules like the plebeians of the legislature or executive.

All such behaviour would be unthinkable in the highest court of England or Australia.