Missourians know as well as anyone just how much impact the U.S. Supreme Court can have on the lives of regular Americans. Last year's ruling overturning Roe v. Wade instantly transformed the legal and societal landscape here by ushering in a near-total state abortion ban that is (depending on your view of the subject) either desperately needed or catastrophic.

On other topics — taxes, health care, affirmative action — the court's pronouncements can be similarly seismic. Which makes it that much more important that the court is viewed as being above reproach.

Yet again and again recently, individual justices have signaled to the public that these ultimate rulemakers view themselves as being above any rules. Justice Samuel Alito's pompous public response this week to questions about a trip he took courtesy of a wealthy conservative who has had business before the court added glowering imperiousness to this perception of impropriety.

The high court is a unique institution in America, not only because its members are unelected and serve for life, but because its power flows entirely from its legitimacy. It is the one and only enforcement mechanism the court has. And in too many ways, the current court is squandering it.

It's bad enough that, starting roughly with Bush v. Gore in 2000 and encompassing current debates over abortion, guns and civil rights, the justices have increasingly been seen as outright partisans who tailor their opinions based on ideology rather than law and precedent.

Even worse in some ways is the current narrative of individual justices engaging in a grubby political spoils system by accepting lavish gifts from politically active plutocrats and then brushing off criticism about it.

The high court is a unique institution in America, not only because its members are unelected and serve for life, but because its power flows entirely from its legitimacy. It is the one and only enforcement mechanism the court has. And in too many ways, the current court is squandering it.

It's bad enough that, starting roughly with Bush v. Gore in 2000 and encompassing current debates over abortion, guns and civil rights, the justices have increasingly been seen as outright partisans who tailor their opinions based on ideology rather than law and precedent.

Even worse in some ways is the current narrative of individual justices engaging in a grubby political spoils system by accepting lavish gifts from politically active plutocrats and then brushing off criticism about it.

Instead of answering the questions, Alito took to the ideologically friendly territory of the Wall Street Journal editorial page to preemptively deny the report (which hadn't yet been published) and lambast the news site.

Alito's tone in his op-ed — as in his written opinions on abortion and other issues — is dismissive to the point of contemptuousness, rejecting any suggestion that his judgment should even be subject to questioning. It's a bad look for a court that many Americans already view as having too much power and too little accountability.

"I had no obligation to recuse in any of the cases that ProPublica cites," Alito declares, claiming he didn't know his benefactor, hedge fund manager Paul Singer, was part of a case before him. (In fact, Singer's involvement in the case was widely reported at the time.)

"It was and is my judgment," Alito further declares, "that these facts would not cause a reasonable and unbiased person to doubt my ability to decide the matters in question impartially."

Well.

Alito claims he wasn't required to report the travel under federal disclosure rules at the time — as if that removes the perception of impropriety — and that his free seat on the private jet, "as far as I am aware, would have otherwise been vacant." That means it wasn't a gift?

He also makes the extraordinary argument that by accepting private jet flight that would have cost an estimated $200,000 round trip had he paid for it, he was doing the taxpayers a favor: "Had I taken commercial flights, that would have imposed a substantial cost and inconvenience on the deputy U.S. Marshals who would have been required for security reasons to assist me."

Enough, already.

These nine justices are the only judges in America who aren't subject to binding rules of judicial conduct regarding conflict-of-interest recusals. A movement is brewing in Congress to require such rules — which it isn't at all clear that Congress has the authority to do. That sets the stage for a constitutional crisis that doesn't have to happen.

The justices themselves could impose these rules and make them binding. Or they can just continue on their charted course toward universally perceived illegitimacy.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

Photo credit: Anna Sullivan at Unsplash