Power Corrupts

The adage, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” may be a cliché, but it is a cliché that we ignore at our peril, and it can help explain why some very smart people can do some very stupid things.

Over time, power is corrosive and can erode a person’s judgment despite the purity of the person’s intentions when first assuming a powerful position. Their judgment can ultimately become subservient to their growing hubris. We should therefore be leery of giving our leaders unfettered, limitless power, no matter how smart and ethical they appear. The latest news concerning Justices Thomas and Alito demonstrates the point.

Let me be clear, this article is not about the judicial philosophies of Justices Thomas or Alito. The unbridled power vested in the United States Supreme Court can infect any justice no matter what judicial wing he or she occupies.

Anyone who has read Corruptible by Brian Klaas will recognize that creating a panel with ultimate authority to interpret our laws that consists of people with lifetime tenure invites those members to succumb to a sense of entitlement. It should therefore not surprise us that Thomas and Alito would perform ethical gymnastics to determine they could accept and not disclose gifts from billionaires worth tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars. (I recognize that people in public service enjoy true personal friendships, and I am not suggesting they need to disclose reasonable gifts that you would expect friends and family to bestow and exchange. But the extravagant gifts showered on Thomas and Alito have no kinship to kindnesses that arise from intimate friendships.)

The hubris associated with extended, unchecked power also helps explain why the Supreme Court has resisted any type of reform and scoffs at the notion that the Judicial Code of Ethics that applies to all other federal judges should apply to Supreme Court justices. They instead prefer to be governed by the precatory principle, “Let our conscience be our guide.” No thanks. The Court should sua sponte adopt a Code of Ethics with teeth. If it does not, then Congress should enact one.

But adopting a Code of Ethics treats a symptom; it does not address the root cause of the problem.

Given the unique nature of the Court, we should dispense with lifetime appointments for its members and place a reasonable term limit on judicial appointments to the Court. A twelve- or fifteen-year appointment seems more than adequate. It ensures continuity and may lessen the toxicity now surrounding confirmations, while minimizing the corrosive effect of power that can occur over time (one of the reasons that U.S. presidents are limited to two terms).

As I have written earlier, I also think we should adopt age limit qualifications for President and the Supreme Court. That especially applies to the Court. The Court’s history is laden with examples of aging justices who stubbornly remained on the Court despite their cognitive impairment. It strikes me that our requiring that no justice serve beyond seventy-five represents an appropriate age limitation. In order to avoid partisan rancor, except for the Code of Ethics, my suggested amendments should apply prospectively and not to any currently sitting Justice.

I recognize that my suggested reforms are no panacea to remedy the corruptible nature of power, but they will help alleviate the problem because the longer you remain in a powerful position, the more susceptible you are to the power corrupting you, no matter how pure your initial intentions.