Were there alcoholics on the Supreme Court when the 21st Amendment was created?

 So it had to be ratified by the States.

But one would believe that their involvement in the judicial process would be subject to the same rules that the Supreme Court must follow.

Specifically, Under 28 U.S. Code sec 455, recusing themselves if they have a conflict of interest? Such as if one of them was an alcoholic, which is a disease, they should not be able to vote on it?

But I suppose we would get absolutely nothing done if that were the case? Because we can all be said to have an interest..

What does it mean to have....

1.  "One of them says that a justice—and it specifically applies to Supreme Court justices—may not participate if somebody could reasonably question that justice's impartiality," Tribe said.

2. "Clearly that's the case here," he said, and he also cited a section that says a justice shouldn't be involved if their spouse has an interest in the case.

Per this link:  Clarence Thomas Might Have Just Broken the Law in the Supreme Court (msn.com)

So this would require a little more complexity to make a point here.  And I currently don't have that wherewithal to do it.

Thomas Murphy