Maybe Sponsor Names Should Be On SC Robes (Satire)

 Alexandria Petri highlights the Supreme Court's ethical problems with a delicious bit of satire in The Washington Post:

It is a truth universally acknowledged that an American billionaire, in possession of sufficient fortune, must be in want of a Supreme Court justice. Nothing seems to bring billionaires so much simple joy ashaving a personal justice to accompany them on yacht and fishing trips, flights on their private planes and jaunts to rustic lodges where the wine was certainly not $1,000 a bottle (in Justice Samuel A. Alito’s opinion). Instead of getting upset (which is unproductive and irritates the people who decide whether we can vote and control our bodies), we need to acknowledge that people who want their own Supreme Court justices are going to get them — if they are wealthy enough. Instead of pretending that a code of ethics can prevent this, let’s find a better system so we can end all this sneaking around.

After all, we live in a capitalist country. There is clearly demand for access to the Supreme Court justices; let us figure out how to regulate the supply. Let us create a marketplace where all can compete. It’s time we allow the sponsorship of justices!

Look at the Supreme Court justices’ robes. All that wasted black space where the names of sponsors could be! Why are we pretending to have an impartial deliberative body when we could be getting rulings from an appropriately emblazoned Samuel Alito (“Brought to you by the Federalist Society”) or Brett “Michelob Ultra” Kavanaugh (“I LIKE BEER!”). And look at those SCOTUS decisions — all that wasted blank space around the margins. Let the sponsors fill it! Or better yet, have them contribute footnotes! Say $10,000 apiece; $15,000 for one with a wry joke in it.

Nobody would need to disclose anything; it would be right there in the ruling or on the robe. They would never need to recuse themselves; petitioners would just know that there would be no getting a ruling against Wilson Baseball EZ Gear (“We love a man who calls balls and strikes!”) out of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Also, Justice Alito could post on Facebook when he caught a big sturgeon with a billionaire friend — without worrying about whether it would be a bad look. Think of the money that Harlan Crow would save on photorealistic paintings if he could just post on social media about his favorite Justice Clarence Thomas memories. And Justice Elena Kagan could finally accept those lox that she refused years ago.

Some people want cameras in the courtroom. I want cameras in the room when billionaires bid to sponsor a justice of their choosing and take that justice on fun little jaunts for the next 10, 15, even 30 years! Open the process up to public scrutiny!

And we, the people, could actually take part in this instead of just watching from the sidelines. Why, millions of us could get together and each put in $5 to sponsor a small fraction of Justice Neil Gorsuch, and perhaps he would allow us to keep control of our uteruses! That would be just great! Or, if everyone with a uterus in the United States throws in three bucks, maybe we can buy a trip for Justice Barrett and Justice Kavanaugh to an emergency room where they can watch a woman suffering a doomed pregnancy go into life-threatening sepsis before receiving medical treatment. Would that help? I don’t know! The point is, we could all be throwing treats at the wall, not just an opaque little group of billionaires who happen to know Leonard Leo. That seems more just to me.

Also, under a system where Supreme Court justices openly and proudly wore the names of their sponsors on their robes and rulings, we could understand more clearly when things did or didn’t go our way, instead of having to pretend that it had something to do with closely interpreting signals sent to the justices by Thomas Jefferson’s ghost. (“This ruling sponsored in part by [Your Name Here]!”)

Given the disparity between the number of Supreme Court justices and the number of would-be sponsors, an alternative solution is to increase the number of justices until supply meets demand. I think this is also viable, although Mitch McConnell probably doesn’t. But as long as billionaires are willing to pay for justice access privileges (I, personally, would pay good money to not have to spend time listening to Justice Alito, but as an American I cannot opt out of that; he gets to decide what all the laws are), I say ... let them!

We know the court thinks money is speech. Well, let it speak where we can hear it! Legalize justice sponsorship now!