A regular govt worker receiving a $25 gift card has to report it or could be fired, but once you get to Supreme Court, you can do whatever you want.
But Federal level elected officials get a pass. And apparently appointed (supreme) court judges, too.
Citation?
There are examples of various judges accepting trips and gifts, but some of them REALLY stand out in the number and value.
I agree that it appears that none of them have really rocked the boat with external pressure, but the court has been a very insular institution. We don't know how much they've talked about it amongst themselves.
Their is also a quote from the late RBG comparing efforts to stop this to some sort of stalinism.
Either way, what is absolutely important is that any enforcement is absolute and not selective / at the discretion of a prosecutor. There is no unbiased person when it comes to potentially shifting the balance of power of the SCOTUS. We can't only be shining a spotlight on justices from one party.
And with 100+ years of precedence (much of which is contradictory or doesn't mesh well with modern morals or the current condition of the US (high technology, fewer physical workers, globalization, etc)), they have a lot of potential justifications at their fingertips.
Historically, federal judges have a 50% conviction rate following impeachment. The proximal causes of such a low impeachment rate, and whether they sufficiently address the current behavior of our supreme court justices is obviously up for debate.
1. https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/samuel-chase-impeached
Of course, you'd be hard pressed to get 66% of America to agree on anything.
“66% of America” isn’t actually relevant (that is neither necessary nor necessarily sufficient to ratify, or even submit for ratification, a Constitutional Amendment).
You're not wrong. That said, it's the SC's job to interpret the wording and the intent of the constitution, including all its amendments. It's how one group of SC justices created the Roe vs. Wade decision, and another group of SC justices overturned it, both using the same constitution and precedent.
They don't even have to be reasonable justifications, judging by the justifications they've used for other rulings recently.
I remember when the standard was that judges should avoid the appearance of corruption, not just avoid the reality of it.
For the regular government worker, does it matter who gives you that card? In the private sector, it's an issue if the card comes from a vendor, customer, etc, but if you just get a gift from some unaffiliated party there no need to report it to your employer.