Dismantling the Supreme Court’s ‘misdirection’ about its own ethics

A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.

A series of findings about Supreme Court justices failing to fully disclose gifts and real estate deals led to a rare moment of unity.

Conservative and liberal justices joined together to say in a statement that they’re quite happy with the current system by which they voluntarily follow ethics guidelines. No changes needed. Independence and security, they argue, make the Supreme Court a special case.

Far from satisfying anyone growing concerned about ethics at the court, the statement made it seem as though the justices feel the rules are optional for them.

The list of problematic ethics developments goes like this:

► First, the independent investigative journalism group ProPublica reported that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose luxury travel financed by his billionaire buddy Harlan Crow, a Republican donor.

► Then, ProPublica reported that Crow bought real estate from Thomas, which Thomas also failed to disclose in 2014.

► CNN later reported the court declined to hear an appeal in a case brought against a company tied to Crow, although it wasn’t clear at the time that Crow had anything to do with the case. Thomas, notably, did not recuse himself from the matter.

None of this is to suggest Thomas exerted any influence on Crow’s behalf. But it does certainly raise questions about ethics and conflicts of interest at a time when public faith in the Supreme Court is sagging.

Thomas blamed bad advice for not disclosing the travel gifts and is set to amend disclosures to retroactively note the real estate deal. Read more from CNN’s Ariane de Vogue.

► But then Politico reported that Justice Neil Gorsuch failed to disclose that he sold nearly $2…