Problem: Judges getting adverse public scrutiny for not reporting potential conflicts of interest and avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
Solution: Lower the standards for conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety.
Problem solved!
Yecchh.
Last week, the U.S. Judicial Conference’s Committee on Financial Disclosure, which sets the ethics rules federal judges, including U.S. Supreme Court justices, are supposed to abide by, ruled that they do not have to publicly disclose when they get lodging, meals and hospitality at a personal residence, even one owned by a business entity.
Under the amended policy, stays at a (usually wealthy) host’s personal residence do not need to be disclosed by a judge even if an entity rather than a person owns the property, as long as the residence is not regularly rented out and is not a commercial property, like a hotel.
“They might as well call it the Clarence Thomas exemption,” said Donald Sherman, chief counsel at the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Well, CREW is a fake non-partisan ethics watchdog that almost exclusively “watches” conservatives, but it’s not wrong this time. The Get Thomas and Get Alito SCOTUS foes will go bonkers over the watering down of the rule, and they have a valid point.
The Supreme Court is in the totalitarian Left’s cross-hairs, and it is a time for the Justices to make a special effort to be beyond reproach, not be accepting ethics loopholes. This doesn’t help.
Ethics Alarms 
They get paid handsomely for life and they can’t fill out a form or pay to stay in a nice hotel. Yuck.
Old Bill,
Just a few random thoughts.
Yes, they are paid handsomely for life because they are, in theory, the weakest branch. They are only as powerful as they are because the other branches expanded their own power.
They are a coequal branch of government, so they should stand up to efforts by the other branches to influence them.
They are also the only branch that relies upon its moral authority for its legitimacy. For that reason, it should be more proactive in protecting its reputation.
But, not because Congress or the President demand it of them, but because they demand it of themselves.
-Jut
But for Christ’s sake, Jut, my point is they can sure as hell afford to do the right thing. That’s why they’re paid for life!
but, that is not why they are paid for life.
the Declaration of Independence made this complaint against King George:
”He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”
THAT is why they are paid for life. The Judiciary could not be a coequal branch if Congress could cut their pay or fire them.
the Courts may have a problem, but it is not one the Legislative or Executive branches have ANY business trying to fix.
-Jut
But the judges sure could.