A Medieval philosopher once wrote that Kings and virtue do not mix. Either man who is virtuous before he becomes king will be corrupted by the power, or a corrupt man before coronation will eventually be transformed to goodness by the people.
James Madison wrote similarly that the first job of citizens is to choose men {sic} of virtue as leading politicians, and the second is to help them stay virtuous while in office.
We have been warned also by Lord Acton’s (1834-1902) well known adage “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The Supreme court of the U.S. remains one of the most powerful and privileged small groups in the world. And we need to recognize that it is a small group, different from Congress and the administration, two entities that require hundreds of people to collaborate to carry out their roles well.
Small groups (three to seven), especially small process groups, have sets of unique characteristics that begin to fade if the group gets any larger than that. Face to face with proximity of bodies, voice tones, and faces makes a small group different from any other collection of people yet discovered. With leadership by a savvy facilitator or clinical educator, small process groups catalyze some of the most excellent life changes available anywhere. (Hilsman, How to Get The Most Out of Clinical Pastoral Education: 2017)
The Supreme court is not a process group, however. But it is close enough in size to foster some aspects of a small group. Made up of members who are highly privileged and powerful, the U.S. Supreme Court is a small discussion and decision-making group with no facilitator, except its voting chief justice. There is nobody objective and trained when they meet to help them clarify the emotional processes that inevitably go on in a small group.
Process groups, as they are called, always include the practice of paying attention to the feelings that are enkindled in and among the members by their topics and interactions. Well conducted, such groups explore the various flows of emotion between group members and in the group as a whole.
We have assumed, naively, that the SCOTUS justices are beyond emotional processes in the relationships among them affecting their decisions. The members of POTUS, we take for granted are able to prescind from such unruly dynamics as feelings, able to discuss, deliberate, and contend without attention to the goings-on beneath awareness, not needing them to be noticed, mentioned, commented on, and brought at times into verbal processing. The justices themselves seem to believe they need no clarifying of their relationships that inevitably flow either freely or awkwardly among them.
Such assumptions are probably not true at all. POTUS members have nobody to guide, explore, name, and confront those buried processes to any useful clarity.
Such hidden processes can be powerful. They can sometimes hijack the objectivity of even the most dedicated group members.
In a quality process group, there is always a facilitator or clinical supervisor savvy and experienced in focusing on the emotional strata of the group. The facilitator is quietly considering options and noting signs of dysfunction in the current relations among the members. None of us knows much about those processes as they play out in the secretive culture of the Supreme Court.
We are told that some justices become friends, some have aversions for others, some admire others, and some mostly go it alone, ignoring and distancing themselves from all emotions wafting, floating and fanning among them. No doubt justices get annoyed with one another, even hurt one another personally. Some inspire fear in others who then likely protect themselves by silence, avoidance, or acquiescence in important decisions. All of that goes unnoticed, or largely so by fairly stoic members. If noticed such influences are mostly ignored, suppressed, rationalized, justified, or even unconsciously reacted to by oppositional behavior.
Character matters in such a situation. Character does not seem to be considered in potential SCOTUS justices before they are voted on by the senate. Like congresspersons and presidents, their character is ignored in choosing them. Who is cognizant of that serious lacuna in our election systems?
We citizens may be seeing some of the results of that wholesale ignoring of character and group dynamics in SCOTUS members efforts at collaboration. We see hints of them in events of the present day, especially in the past weeks and months. All we can do is speculate on how it is going among those nine heady lawyer/judges, and how emotional dynamics are influencing decisions made by this court that carry heavy implications for decades to come, for millions of people.
Here are four different possibilities of why the SCOTUS seems so problematic lately, due to failures of character. They suggest that at the least potential justices ought to be assessed regarding their character before they are allowed to serve as justices.
Misguided dedication – What are each of these POTUS members dedicated to the most? Greed, power, and excessive attachment to the importance of the position may overcome their assumed chief purpose of pondering what the American people need in a legal framework to protect us from myriad forces that impinge upon our safety and from being exploited by one another. Their role of enhancing the essential aspects of our lives and guide us towards constantly improving our lives seems to get sidetracked. Even over-focus on the law, its complex history, and the intricacies of its workings can distract from taking an intuitive look at what that system and the nation really needs at this point in history that may not have been intended or recognized by the founding fathers.
Secondly, some POTUS members may be short on fortitude. Do each of them possess the personal strength and interpersonal courage it takes to make bold decisions on very controversial issues, running against the incessant pressures nudging and yanking them from hot societal movements, incessant lobbying, and one another’s strong opinions? Clear thinking is crucial but not enough in that grinding group culture. It must often be easier to collude with the position of a strongly opinionated sub-group, or even a highly animated colleague, rather than find the words and voice speaking inside oneself about what is really needed in the moment by the American public. Underneath the formal level of processing, is there hidden subtle relinquishing of power to stay safer personally, demurring rather than acting, acquiescence to a louder colleague, and deferring to a lower or future court what could be set today? Do all of these justices have the courage to confront one another on their perceptible self-indulgence, taking advantage of their high position for material benefits or the appearance of conflicts of interest?
Third, the virtue of acceptance characteristic of a seasoned adult may be stuck in an earlier, even adolescent stage. In middle age the limitations of life – unstoppable physical decline, financial mediocrity, waning potential for historical legacy greatness, diminished romantic and sexual excitement – need to be specifically accepted. Otherwise creeping into the personality will be barely perceived resentment, hopeless discouragement, and/or lackluster work performance. Such is life and the struggle to accept its limitations that stalls the hoped-for later life joy in depression and anxiety. Accepted as an inherent aspect of life’s irreversible decline, aging can be perceived as wonderful, rich and a unique further development of humanity. But without acceptance, or a least tolerance, it may prod avarice as “the sin of ageing”, and cloud decisions made about key legal issues. We citizens don’t need or want a top court still groping for life fulfillment issues. Better to have one who is enjoying at least a few days that are (almost) full of appreciation of grandchildren’s faces, fish pursued (and sometimes caught), cooking sophistication, hands held, bodies cuddled, and life companioned by somebody until the very end.
Finally, is there in justices a lack humility, that realistic appraisal of one’s own importance, excellence, or worth? Does a privileged public official get convinced of their deserving more than they are receiving for their work? An associate SCOTUS justice is paid $274,000 per year, for life. But after several years noting that business administrators, athletes, and media personalities the same age make millions per year, and they themselves are not getting any younger, ideas loom that one deserves free gifts from wealthy individuals that may easily be seen as a conflict of interest by others. That decision must be tough. Character is tested. There is no effective code of ethics for POTUS yet. Will any of their POTUS colleagues confront them about their failures of character?
A few final questions for discussion: Have these current justices been inflating their brilliance or wisdom as greater than previous justices of the past few centuries, seemingly brushing away previous precedents a bit too easily?
Would assessing their character during the time between being nominated by a president and the time facing the Senate for confirmation have suggested likelihood that some of them may lack the solid humility, mature acceptance, feisty fortitude, and dedication to the human community needed to lead us from the top?
