The more things change…. SCOTUS and Pericles (5th cent. BCE Athens)

A parallel restriction of the power of gift-reciprocity is evident in laws concerning the administration of justice. Because gifts expect, and oblige, a return, those invested with judicial roles who are also embedded in gift relationships, and therefore have obligations to their benefactors, are liable to skew their assessment of legal disputes. Hence Pericles’ innovation, in fifth-century Athens, that citizens who took part in judicial hearings should receive payment from the state (a source that commits them to the interests of the city) —and this to counter the power of Cimon, whose gifts to his demesmen kept them beholden to him. Wherever we find civic oflicials swearing to conduct their roles without regard to favors, and judges required to refuse gifts, we find the clash between two transactional regimes, the regime of the gift, with its strong personal ties of loyalty and reciprocation, and the regime of civic-legal power, which claims a higher authority within its own domain.—J. M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift 30

<idle musing>
The more things change, the more they remain the same, eh? Not much has changed in 2500 or so years. Think SCOTUS, gits, and justice. Which one suffers when SCOTUS accepts gifts? (Hint: it isn't the gift-giver!)
</idle musing>