It seems the U.S. Supreme Court is ethical like Bermuda has frost warnings

Poor Abe Fortas. His corpse was lying there in the grave, minding its own business, when we learned that our Supreme Court has an ethical standard normally associated with Third World pickpockets.

So naturally, the press went searching American history for a time when there was this much smarmy behavior on the bench, but it was unable to find any parallel — with the exception of Abe Fortas, a liberal appointee on the 1960s Warren Court who resigned in disgrace for briefly accepting $20,000 for his family foundation from a Wall Street financier.

Fortas did have the good grace to return the 20 grand and leave office — partly because he had a conscience, partly because he was approached by Nixon administration goons who basically said, “That’s a real nice robe you have there; it would be a shame if something happened to it.”

So now, any story about Clarence “Just Put the Suitcase Full of Cash Over There” Thomas has, in its second paragraph the obligatory “Not since Abe Fortas has a Supreme Court Justice …” or “Thomas’ actions harken back to Abe Fortas, who in 1969 …”

It seems relatively certain that 99.9% of the American public had never heard of Abe Fortas (except maybe for that small but dedicated cult of “Gideon vs. Wainwright” fans) before this, and you wouldn’t blame Fortas’ ghost for coming back from wherever it is to give Clarence Thomas a kick in his lavishly pampered behind.

Here’s what I don’t get: Why do you need to buy off Clarence Thomas? He’s been the most reliable conservative vote since the day he was appointed, so what advantage do you gain by removing him from his stated comfort zone in a Walmart parking lot and sending him off to sip drinks out of a coconut on some private tropical island? Isn’t this like paying a cow to eat grass?

Yet even as Thomas was accepting luxury vacations and other considerations worth millions from conservative activists; even as his wife has been shown to have been an active participant in plans to overthrow the American government; even as a law firm with a substantial caseload at the Supreme Court level was bailing Justice Neil Gorsuch out of a bad real estate investment; even as it came to light that the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts earned more than $10 million placing lawyers with law firms, some of which have had cases before the Supreme Court; even as it turned out they lied under oath to Congress about their judicial intentions — the court agreed in a 9-0 decision that it doesn’t have an ethics problem.

Really? They’re all but giving away decisions as a prize on “The Price is Right,” and the court doesn’t see a problem? Even Sam Bankman-Fried thinks the Supreme Court should be ashamed.

And that’s not to mention that the court has more leaks than a Miami-bound Cuban fishing boat. Of course we all know what’s going on there.

Nearly 30 years ago, after he had been acquitted of slashing the throats of his wife and a young waiter, O.J. Simpson proclaimed that he would spend the rest of his life searching for the “real killer” — an investigation carried out primarily on South Florida golf courses.

If you are of a certain age, this had to be the first thing you thought of when Justice Sam Alito announced that he “knew” who leaked the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade (it was a liberal of course), but declined to say who it was because he just didn’t quiiiite have enough proof.

Free State politics: Maryland's US Senate race to succeed Ben Cardin already a crowded field. Here's who's in.

Dude! Why don’t you just tattoo “IT WAS ME!” on your forehead?

One thing he did get right: I’m sure Alito does indeed know who the leaker is, and everyone on the court knows it too. But maybe they’ve all been treated to island vacations to keep their mouths shut.

Tim Rowland is a Herald-Mail columnist.

This article originally appeared on The Herald-Mail: Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Roberts, Alito have ethics questioned