Lucia

de Vernai

Read Lucia's bio and previous columns

May 13, 2008

Taking Stock of Supreme Court Conflicts of Interest

Preventing the conflict of interest is one of the main goals of the American system of checks and balances. The scandal that erupts when Americans find out about conflict of interest is one of our national guilty pleasures. And it’s so much more gratifying when it’s the ones you least expected that get caught with their fingers in the cookie jar. Hooker or Saudi royal family photo album – we’re a nation of great diversity after all, you never know where you’ll find those sneaky politicians next.

Maybe that’s why it’s so interesting that the Supreme Court will not hear a case because four of our justices had to recuse themselves due to their holding of stock in the large companies that were parties to the suit. Technically, there is nothing wrong with trying to make some extra cash on the side – maybe if more justices were financially secure, they would retire before the current average age of 104. Trouble is that the lawsuit is being brought forth by South African apartheid victims accusing large corporations, including ExxonMobil, IBM, Coca-Cola and General Electric, of supporting the human rights abuses of the white regime beginning in 1948.

If you’re wondering what in the world U.S. courts are doing deciding cases between the citizens of another country and Canadian, American and European corporations, you may be surprised to know that while we may have told international law organizations to shove it and let the UN keep its New York headquarters just to keep the Trump family from owning everything in the city, we are not as isolated as we thought.

The Alien Tort Claims Act, a law left over from the 18^th Century, allows non-citizens to bring international law violation suits to U.S. courts. Consequently, tens of thousands of claimants from South Africa are using our system to seek remands. The Supreme Court will not hear the case, however, because less than the six justices required for a quorum could participate, and the Supreme Court has to affirm the circuit court decision in favor of the victims.

The corporations are quite displeased, arguing that the decision will “adversely affect U.S. foreign policy.” ExxonMobil is an oil company. If it were really worried about U.S. foreign policy, it would be concerned with the Middle East, not South Africa. Rather, the conflicts of interest this case – a court incapacitated because of business interest, business accountable because of political interest – are proof that even the most elite of our institutions are not immune to the power of the dollar.

One ethicist suggested that the justices ought to sell their stocks and buy mutual funds instead. Ha. That’s cute. After innumerable politicians admitted to holding conflicting positions and stakes in corporations, and voters merely shrugged their shoulders in response, it is hard to imagine that the justices would give up their financial gains for the sake of due process of law. In the U.S., Justice may be blind, but it has a portfolio . . . and it prioritizes accordingly.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.