On the newest episode of the Passing Judgment podcast, we focus on the ethical dilemmas surrounding Supreme Court justices and their affiliations. Joined by Supreme Court correspondent for USA Today, John Fritze, we delve into Justice Thomas' alleged luxurious trips to Justice Alito's controversies, and examine a web of potential influences on court decisions. Fritze shares his expertise on how the lack of clear authority to enforce ethical rules raises questions about self-policing and potential separation of powers concerns. This episode emphasizes the need for ethics reform and transparency urging us to question the higher standard we hold for our esteemed justices. Here are three key takeaways from the episode: 1️⃣ Their is a lack of enforcement mechanisms for ethical rules in the Supreme Court and the challenges of self-policing. Who should be responsible for ensuring that justices adhere to ethical standards, and how can we strike a balance between independence and accountability? This is where the need for ethical accountability is necessary. 2️⃣ Ethics concerns may also influence the court's decisions on which cases to take. With public perception playing a role, we explore the potential consequences of aligning case selection with public opinion. 3️⃣ The recent controversies surrounding Justice Thomas and Justice Alito's travel raise questions about transparency and the Supreme Court's declining poll numbers. The implications of these issues on public confidence in the court and the need for ethics reform is emphasized in light of these challenges. Follow Our Guest: On X formerly known as Twitter: @Jfritze Follow Our Host: On X formerly known as Twitter: @LevinsonJessica