Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has reportedly unleashed an attack on his critics for his violations of disclosure laws and alleged conflicts of interest. He warned law students that these critics are “undermining” the Court and endangering the country by weakening core institutions. As one of those critics, I am flabbergasted by Thomas’ remarks which show an implied disregard that seems to have now reached open contempt for certain principles of judicial ethics. There is not a hint of concern for his own conduct and how it has undermined the Supreme Court as an institution. For a prior column, click here
This weekend at a Federalist Society event, Thomas insisted that his wife Ginny is being attacked because she believes in the same thing as he does and that they “are focused on defending liberty.” That appears to be his defense for years of filing false disclosure forms that effectively hid hundreds of thousands of dollars of salary from conservative organizations.
When I first read these comments, it seemed that Thomas was just stuck on some Kübler-Ross process on denial and transference. However, it seems much more worrisome. Thomas clearly holds an imperial view of the Court. He has previously objected to those who would presume to criticize those in charge of their institutions. In these remarks, Thomas strikes a perfectly messianic note, warning the students that critics “seem bent on undermining” the Court. He added:
“You all are going to be, unfortunately, the recipients of the fallout from that – that there’s going to be a day when you need these institutions to be credible and to be fully functioning to protect your liberties . . . . And that’s long after I’m gone, and that could be either a short or a long time, but you’re younger, and it’s still going to be a necessity to protect the liberties that you enjoy now in this country.”
Frankly, it is a spin that borders on the delusional. Thomas and some of his colleagues are destroying a long tradition of neutrality of justices by pandering to their ideological base. Thomas magnified this damage by adding years of disclosure violations that withheld information that would have been relevant to his own alleged conflicts of interest. He clearly confuses the justices with the institution itself — treating himself as the personification of the rule of law. Ironically, this is precisely the problem that I have described in the advent of the celebrity justice.
What is even more distressing is that Thomas would choose this forum to address these complaints rather than answer the formal inquiries regarding his disclosure violations.
Source: Politico
Jonathan Turley
“What is the quality of your intent?
Thurgood Marshall”
Here’s the question I want to ask “justice” Thomas: dude, it has been 30 years. In all the decades before and after your confirmation hearing, Anita Hill has demonstrated no reason to lie, no character in her personality that draws a horrid light, and has gone to great lengths not to profit from it since.
30 years.
And someone is still lying about it, a lie that has diminished this angry man, and stolen the honor out of his career. A horrid lie, now festering for 30 years, is an impeachable offense in my book. Everything else he has done as a “justice” proceed from his deliberate disassociation from the truth.
Next, I fully expect Justice Thomas to paint his face blue, grab his sword, mount his horse (not that way you sicko) and address his men. Declaring that any attack upon him is an attack upon freedom and they should therefore die to defend his freedom.
I am on an email list from US Courts and in one of them read that every year the S.C. gets over 9,000 petitions. Personally I applied twice and both times I paid to file and I ended up spending thousands of dollars on printing plus the writing and layout was a huge amount of work. So the question I have is what happened to my petitions?
So if they get over 9,000 petitions per year and each is read by one who then decides whether the others might be interested, then each justice would have to read 1,0000 initial petitions. Then if the first justice recommended 10% of those, each would have a required second reading of 800 petitions. That is before they get to doing anything on the petitions they actually accept. Obviously that does not happen, the justices don’t have time to do that much reading.
So the question I have even before we get to the particular justices, is how and who picks their petitions?
Another point is that the Supreme Court could allow ECF filing but doesn’t. If they had ECF filing, then they could have a public listing of the questions on appeal. The S.C. could also require a summary of defense be filed by ECF to make it easier for them to pick petitions and to weed out the complaints of obstruction of justice from those that are asking for a true legal opinion.
No wonder Silent Clarence rarely speaks. Nothing good ever comes from it.
He hasn’t spoken on the bench for 5 years. 5 years. I only wish he was a scrupulously silent outside of the courthouse.
“Justice Clarence Thomas’s 5-year silence: By the numbers”
“The conservative Supreme Court justice is making history by staying speechless for so long. Here’s how his silent streak breaks down
POSTED ON FEBRUARY 16, 2011, AT 6:20 PM”
“Justice Clarence Thomas has not spoken during a court argument in five years, though he takes part in the justices’ internal discussions.”
The Supreme Court’s return from its midwinter break next week will mark a legal milestone: It will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas last spoke during a court argument, a record unequalled by any other justice in recent decades. His “epic silence on the bench is just one part of his enigmatic and contradictory persona,” says Adam Liptak in The New York Times. Here, a brief guide, by the numbers, to Justice Thomas’s silent years:
5
Number of years, as of next Tuesday, since Justice Thomas last spoke during a court argument. “While Thomas’s silence on the bench may be regrettable, there’s no question he’s taking a very active part in the justices’ internal debates,” says Damon W. Root in Reason. “And that, after all, is where the court’s decisions are ultimately made.”
40
Number of years since any other justice has gone an entire term, let alone five, without speaking, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a University of Minnesota political science professor
133
Average number of questions per hourlong argument that Supreme Court justices collectively asked from 1988 to 2008. That’s more than two questions per minute. “Thomas isn’t wrong to suggest that the last thing the bench needs is another chatterbox,” says Dahlia Lithwick at Slate. …”
http://theweek.com/article/index/212188/justice-clarence-thomass-5-year-silence-by-the-numbers
“Justice” Thomas,
To be clear, the only thing undermining the Supreme Court is a barely qualified jurist who acts like a bought off fascist supporting toady like yourself and your buddies, Roberts and Scalia pissing on the Constitution and expecting the American people to believe you when you tell them it’s rain.
Citizens United is proof positive that you don’t respect, let alone understand, the Constitution from the words “We the People” forward.
Screw you and screw your whining.
You want to defend the integrity of SCOTUS?
Resign.
Today.
That would be a step in the right direction, you hack.
What BIL said. Now, to get it onto billboards across the country…
“that there’s going to be a day when you need these institutions to be credible and to be fully functioning to protect your liberties”
My, awfully angry and defensive, isn’t he? Well, you know what they say about people who immediately jump on the defensive …
“Justice” Thomas does not see the irony here – it is TODAY that the courts credibility is sorely lacking; it is TODAY that the court only fully functions for the “citizen” corporations.
“Justice” Thomas is an embarrassment to the robe he wears.
This Goon needs an ass whipping….a Good One….. But then he might like it and pay for more…
Charles II, 1661
An Act for Safety and Preservation of His Majesties Person and Government against Treasonable and Seditious practices and attempts
And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid That if any person or persons at any time after the four and twentieth day of June in the yeare of our Lord One thousand six hundred sixty and one during His Ma[jes]tie life shall malitiously and advisedly publish or affirm the King to be an Heretick or a Papist or that he endeavours to introduce Popery or shall maliciously and advisedly by writing printing preaching or other speaking expresse publish utter or declare any Words Sentences or other thing or things to incite or stir up the people to hatred or dislike of the Person of His Majestie or the established Government then every such person and persons being thereof legally convicted shall be disabled to have or enjoye and is hereby disabled and made incapable of having holding enjoying or exercising any place Office or promotion Ecclesiasticall Civill or Military or any other Imployment in Church or State other then that of his Peerage and shall likewise be liable to such further and other punishments as by the Common Laws or Statutes of this Realm may be inflicted in such cases.
Nothing really new is it?
He’s always responded to criticism with paranoid comments. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior—there’s nothing new here. Moreover, he’s always been a rank opportunist–a Black nationalist in college who suddenly became a conservative when it would advance his career.
The more important question is what’s being done by Common Cause or others to address his conflict of interest.
AY:
“This Goon needs an ass whipping….a Good One….. But then he might like it and pay for more…”
********************
Due only to your sagacious remarks, I am reconsidering the wisdom of Mussolini’s comment that, “a good beating did not hurt anyone.”
“He clearly confuses the justices with the institution itself — treating himself as the personification of the rule of law. Ironically, this is precisely the problem that I have described in the advent of the celebrity justice.”
***********************
Beware the man who proclaims, “I am the law.”
Clarence Thomas, the Anti-Black
Thomas is often described as a “complicated” personality, but that’s just a euphemism for being a self-loathing ally of the worst sections of the white ruling class.
“October 13, 2007
“Clarence Thomas is a deeply troubled man — a grotesquely twisted, “Down Home”-grown Black personality at war with the demons of his dark-skinned, dirt poor youth. Although Thomas has accumulated many “enemies” — earned and imagined — since his entrance to the white world in the 10th grade in Savannah, Georgia, his core pathology is Black-directed — a trait so obvious it was immediately perceived by a succession of white Republican racists who rocketed him to the U.S. Supreme Court with obscene haste to become a hit-man against his own people.”
http://www.alternet.org/story/64929/?page=1
I am so saddened by the fact that this is the man who replaced the inestimable Thurgood Marshall…
Clearly Thomas is only getting in touch with his inner-Stallone, mespo.
A classic example of transference – Freud would have had a ball analyzing Thomas’s childhood.
James in LA
1, February 28, 2011 at 10:21 am
Here’s the question I want to ask “justice” Thomas: dude, it has been 30 years. In all the decades before and after your confirmation hearing, Anita Hill has demonstrated no reason to lie, no character in her personality that draws a horrid light, and has gone to great lengths not to profit from it since.
30 years.
And someone is still lying about it, a lie that has diminished this angry man, and stolen the honor out of his career. A horrid lie, now festering for 30 years, is an impeachable offense in my book. Everything else he has done as a “justice” proceed from his deliberate disassociation from the truth.
=====================================================
An excellent point and one Thomas should have to answer during every public appearance he makes.
Wow! Justice Clarence Thomas is afraid for the institution of the Supreme Court!? As Prof. Turley correctly suggested, the fact that he hid hundreds of thousancds of dollars from mandatory disclosure forms for years and criticism is now verboten is ludicrous. But I guess I forgot we are talking about someone who thinks judicial ethics is below him.
Now I know why he doesn’t ask questions during oral arguments. He is afraid of putting his shoe in his mouth. Someone get him a Diet Coke.
Mespo,
Maybe we should call him Thomas the First.
rafflaw said, “Maybe we should call him Thomas the First.”
How about ‘Uncle Tom’?
A good judge realizes the need for respect for the courts constrains his own conduct–not the conduct of his critics.
“Thomas voted with the majority in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which turns corporations into people with free speech rights that need protection, and paves the way for unlimited corporate funding of elections if not the outright purchase of democracy. That decision laid the groundwork for the corporate-sponsored Tea Party campaign of voter intimidation and voter suppression against blacks and Latinos in the current election season.
As Justice Stevens eloquently stated in his dissent, “The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.”
http://www.thegrio.com/politics/why-clarence-thomas-owes-african-americans-an-apology.php
It’s not Important,
I would never call Justice Thomas what you called him.
Blouise, recall he called any questioning of his unassailable self a “high-tech lynching” to further diffuse the truth, a rancid, vile argument that made a complete mockery of everyone participating in his “confirmation” hearings, to say nothing of over 400 years of slavery and its legacy. White fright-flight then led to the gut-wrenching shutting down of the committee before actual findings of fact were completed. There was more to hear on Thomas’ stunted personality that did not evolve out of the 8th grade. MUCH more, and they shut it down.
He needs to be impeached. We are we actually surprised by his lying ways 30 years later? Leopards of his particular corpulent longevity do NOT change their spots.
In his mind, he remains silent so we can obtain no argumentative purchase. That he feels compelled to speak out now means he feels vulnerable. Now it’s time to relentlessly dig him out.
rafflaw,
You’re right, I shouldn’t have said it – I’m just so frustrated with the damage that people like Justice Thomas as the Koch brothers have done to our republic. Still, I should know better than to resort to name calling… sorry.
James in LA,
I think you are correct in the reasons why he keeps his mouth shut while on the bench.
It’s not important,
don’t worry, we all get pissed off enought to say the wrong things at times!
Here’s a discussion on what Its Not important just said:
“During the radio program a few callers threw out names of individuals who they considered “Uncle Toms.” Names like conservative Armstrong Williams, Fox News pundit Juan Williams and former RNC chair Michael Steele. But Sharpton quickly made the point that political ideology does not make a person a Tom.
However, the name most used by the callers during the discussion was Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court. A few callers pointed to recent reports that Thomas hasn’t spoken on the bench in five years. They felt that he was simply put on the court as the “black justice” to further an anti-black agenda.”
http://www.thegrio.com/news/do-black-people-really-know-their-uncle-tom.php
Don’t knock the messenger.
eniobob,
if they are correct, I sure hope Justice Thomas is well paid for that kind of “work”.
raff:
I thought this was funny,and true.
“”I think that you’ve got wealthy blacks like Earl Graves and Muhammad Ali in his height, that clearly were not Tom’s,” Sharpton said. “You’ve got people that I know that were on welfare in Brooklyn that could give out master degrees in book dancing and Tom-ing.”
Is it a prerequisite that before joining the GOP/Teabaggers that you must show your ability to play the victim when criticized??
Depends on whose Justice is being gored. Thomas claimed that corporations have legal standing to contribute to political causes, Douglas claimed trees have legal standing to bring lawsuits.
Perhaps more leeway can given to a dissent, but respect for the court is still affected. Impeachment proceedings were brought against Douglas – if the same were initiated against Thomas the same result would probably happen.
eniobob,
It is funny! I am never sure about Sharpton though.
Stamford,
I for one think the answer is yes!
I have always felt that Justice Thomas’ sole qualification which won him the job was his race – I certainly haven’t seen anything that would lead me to believe that his work before or after joining the SCOTUS merits that lofty position (clearly ‘disgraces’ is a more appropriate adjective). I don’t know the particulars of why Justice Thomas was chosen for the SCOTUS, but I do not believe that he would have ever been nominated if he were not African-American (and replacing Thurgood Marshall…) and I wonder if part of his selection was as a living argument against affirmative action (as in, ‘see what happens when you are forced to take a minority rather than the best qualified person…’).
Buckeye,
The impeachment attempt of Douglas went nowhere because there were no high crimes or misdemeanors. There were objections to his granting of a stay of execution for the Rosenbergs and politics got involved. In Justic Thomas’ situation, we have evidence of continued violation of ethics rules in hiding large sums of income of his wife from lobbying groups. obviously in this current House they are not going to vote to impeach, but a guy can dream can’t he??
Stamford Liberal,
The victim card is important to any astroturfing effort. It’s a great way to distract attention from things like the billionaires and corporations pulling your strings – and even more effective when it is used by the dupes who really think they’re part of a grassroots movement. I would be surprised if it isn’t intentional in both the case of the tea party (the astroturf part – not the rank and file) and Justice Thomas.
eniobob
That’s hilarious.
“The final mystery is oneself.” – Oscar Wilde
Raflaw, even the calls for impeachment damages the GOP if they start coming from more circles. They absolutely cannot afford to lose him on the court, so they will bend over backwards defending what clearly cannot be defended. Throw in Anita Hill, and you’ve got a toxic hot potato the GOP cannot dispose of without severe damage.
It can only happen by relentlessly speaking out and demanding action. It’s a fight worth waging now, in light of these recent disclosures, which really completes the circle on an awful, shameful legacy to the great Thurgood Marshall.
rafflaw
Yah, we can dream. Douglas was involved in a corporation’s funding, also, but the main problem was his liberal decisions.
I thought it was decided there were no ethics rules – yet – for Supreme Court Justices. Or any way to curb them other than impeachment – which ain’t gonna happen.
Buckeye,
The ethics issues I was referring to were the income disclosure records that the Supremes also have to fill out. Of course, there is no enforcement mechanism.
James in LA,
I agree that consistent calls for Thomas’ impeachment might help. but I think he will trip himself up at some point. I think he has a very large antacid budget. He is one angry man.
The pressure is ramping up on Thomas. I have to wonder what the implied threat from the hacker group Anonymous might bring. If there is an email dump as in the HB Gary case, what will there be that might implicate Thomas and Scalia? One has to wonder what they might be squirming about these days, knowing the hackers may, at this very moment, be poring over their emails (read: orders) from the Koch crime family.
BTW, I checked just a little while ago and Americans for Prosperity is still giving an error message.
OS,
Thanks for the update on the hacker group. I had forgotten about their call to go after the Koch brothers. There are probably quite a few cockroaches hiding under some of those Kansas rocks.
Here is a list of all of the workers for AfP….
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/about/staff
Pick your state and give em a hell..O…… or pick some state and do the same….
I am sure they are waiting for communication……
I wonder if we all synced and wrote each one at the same instant if they would like that….
AY,
Thanks for the link. Is the site working again?
Its Not Important:
“I don’t know the particulars of why Justice Thomas was chosen for the SCOTUS, but I do not believe that he would have ever been nominated if he were not African-American (and replacing Thurgood Marshall…) and I wonder if part of his selection was as a living argument against affirmative action (as in, ‘see what happens when you are forced to take a minority rather than the best qualified person…’).”
Someone gave their opinion as to why this may have happened.
“a trait so obvious it was immediately perceived by a succession of white Republican racists who rocketed him to the U.S. Supreme Court with obscene haste to become a hit-man against his own people.”
from:http://www.alternet.org/story/64929/?page=1
It’s the innate arrogance of the Plutocracy, Clarence Thomas is just a willing tool of the Plutocracy. He is shameful.
AY,
We don’t have an Americans for Prosperity chapter in my state. That’s one good reason why I like living in Massachusetts–the place where the REAL tea party took place!
He is not bordering on the delusional, he is delusional and it is a facet of him being mentally ill. There is a lot more mental illness in this country than people want to admit. Here is a prime example sitting in on a life time job.
Elaine M,
Not one to be found in CT either. NH and ME are the only New England states that have chapters.
Lol – love the “real tea party” dig!!
Elaine and Stamford,
You have just one more reason to agree with Dorothy, “there is no place like home”!
He has a lifetime appointment, is shtupping a wealthy blonde, and survived a high-tech lynching. No need to say anything with those creds.
mr.ed,
With all due respect, the only thing you have correct about Justice Thomas is the lifetime appointment. The high tech lynching is a joke. If anyone was “lynched” in those hearings it was Prof. Hill.
eniobob,
Thanks for the link – I haven’t finished it yet, but it’s very interesting so far (and explains a lot). Were it not for the damage he’s doing to the fabric of our society, it would merely be another sad tale of the loss of potential instead of the epic tragedy it has become for our country.
rafflaw,
“You have just one more reason to agree with Dorothy, “there is no place like home”!”
The only other place I would even think of moving to would be Amsterdam
“In my view a use of force that causes only insignificant harm to a prisoner may be immoral, it may be tortious, it may be criminal … but it is not ‘cruel and unusual punishment.’ ”
~Hudson v. McMillan, 5013 U.S. 1 (1992)(Thomas, J, in dissent)
(Angola, Louisiana, prisoner Keith Hudson was left “with loosened teeth, facial bruises and a cracked dental plate” after being shackled and taken to a secluded place to be beaten by guards.)
JT’s “criticism” seems mild compared to the revelation of core rot disclosed by these few words by our Justice from Pin Point.
Thanks for the cite eniobob.
Mespo,
I remember when the Hudson decision came down. Those statements by Justice Thomas have to be some of the saddest words I have ever read in a Supreme Court decision. I wonder if he or a relative had to undergo that kind of treatment, if he would have a different view of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment? Also how in heck can treatment be torture and criminal, but not cruel and unusual? You are right that those few words say it all about Justice Thomas.
In case after case, high profile people who commit crimes see themselves as persecuted by anyone who points out those crimes.
After listening to people from the financial industry, from the US political arena and of course, a real standout in this regard, Mr. Moamar Gaddafi, I have come to the conclusion that many US and world leaders are clinically insane. They add to this an extremely bad character. I find this situation frightening.
I don’t have much to add — the Professor got this one exactly right.
Justice Thomas, you are not the Supreme Court, sir. Just criticism of your conduct strengthens the institution.
Jill,
So, judging from the general tone of your posts on this site, you think that when dealing with crazy people (who happen to control things like armies, nuclear weapons, and large segments of the economy…) the best course of action is to confront them, demand that they admit their crimes (which they are highly unlikely (due to their mental illness) to be able, let alone willing, to confess), and refuse any kind of compromise or accommodation with them (presumably until they’ve surrendered or otherwise lost the power they were abusing – at which point there is no need for any compromise or accommodation…). What effect do you expect this to have? It’s a good thing that you’re not in the mental health or diplomatic professions, but it’s still kind of scary that a clearly well educated person can give so little thought to the ramifications of their arguments… And if you’re afraid (I am, too) then maybe you should look at what sort of constructive action you could take instead of assuming that blind outrage and victimhood are the best course…
Slart,
I don’t believe you wish to have a sincere dialogue with me. When I earilier asked you to answer two simple questions before I responded to you, you simply refused to answer one altogether and gave a sort of half answer to the other. That doesn’t strike me as a sincere way to do things. So, carry on, but for the record you are misrepresenting or simply misunderstand what I’ve been saying.
rafflaw: “It’s not Important, I would never call Justice Thomas what you called him.” (Uncle Tom)
—
Your a better person than I am, Gunga Din. The first people I heard referring to him thusly were civil rights lawyers that I knew. When he was the head of the EEOC he let about 7000 complaints lapse and moved away from class action suits to an individual model, thus weakening the system and the EEOC’s success rate.
He is a self-loathing black man and an enemy to minorities and justice. IMO a simple “Uncle Tom” is too good of a name for him.
Lotta,
thanks, but don’t get me wrong. I do believe that Justice Thomas is a disgrace to the Supreme Court, I just try to avoid the terminoology that It’s not Important used earlier. He is an enemy to justice no matter what individual is in front of him. Now, if you are talking about corporations, that is a different story! Time for dinner, yeah!
Jill,
I’ll participate in a discussion with you if you wish (although not to rehash old arguments). My comment was an honest attempt to communicate my understanding of your position (albeit in a provocative way) so if you would care to explain how I have misrepresented you, I will clarify my remarks, rebut your argument, or accept your explanation. If you don’t want to do that, it’s fine by me, but I am not unwilling to have a sincere dialogue.
I just love Tea….Par…Tay….anyone….
“That he feels compelled to speak out now means he feels vulnerable. Now it’s time to relentlessly dig him out.” (James L A)
Yes sir, you are once again, in my opinion, right on the money. Thomas’s character is not particularly strong and as such he is a constant whiner. The kitchen is always too hot for him and turning up the heat is an excellent tactic.
Although his value to the party is his vote on the Court, in all other areas he is a liability for them. It’s time to constantly showcase those liabilities by increasing and sustaining the heat until, like a poorly thrown piece of pottery, he cracks.
Blouise,
Justice Thomas will melt when the heat and spotlight is turned up. I hope the media stays on the case!
“He’s always responded to criticism with paranoid comments. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior—there’s nothing new here. Moreover, he’s always been a rank opportunist–a Black nationalist in college who suddenly became a conservative when it would advance his career.”
Rich has it right and there is no need for an analysis of the Thomas psyche. A look at his entire career shows the workings of a hack, who was willing to do the bidding of his “betters,” despite ethical considerations.
Clarence Thomas is a person who is out for himself, got his hands dirty but finally hit the “big time.” He is on the court simply as an ironic riposte by the pultocrats, using his color ironically to replace Thurgood Marshall, a Justice of great substance, with a lifetime of wondrous achievement, who irritated our rulers.
“Thurgood Marshall”
I don’t know if anyone caught the HBO movie, “Thurgood” last Thursday but if not, I highly recommend it. Laurence Fishburne’s (one of my favorite actors) portrayal does right by Justice Marshall.
“Justice” Thomas will never be of Justice Marshall’s caliber.
This is merely the latest act in Justice Thomas’ continuing one-man show, “The Perpetual Victim as Supreme Court Justice.”
The man is a disgrace and mechanisms should be explored to remove him from the court.
From Think Progress (3/1/2011)
Why We Doubt Clarence Thomas
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/01/why-we-doubt-thomas/
Excerpt:
As the news outlet which originally broke the story that Justice Thomas unethically attended a Koch-sponsored political fundraiser, ThinkProgress is honored by Thomas’ suggestion that we have become so powerful that we are capable of undermining an entire branch of the federal government. Yet, if Thomas is really concerned that the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is being undermined, he should direct his criticism far closer to home:
Unethical Fundraising: The Code of Conduct for United States Judges forbids those judges from “personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose,” except in very limited circumstances that don’t apply to the Koch’s political fundraising sessions. Although the nine justices have exempted themselves from their binding legal obligation to follow these ethical rules, they have also long followed a policy of “look[ing] to the Code of Conduct for guidance” in determining when they may participate in fundraising activities. Thomas’ decision to thumb his nose at judicial ethics has already triggered a bill that would end the justices longstanding immunity to ethics laws.
Failure to Disclose: Federal judges and justices are required by law to disclose their spouse’s income — thus preventing persons who wish to influence the judge or justice from funneling money to them through their husband or wife. Nevertheless, Thomas falsely claimed that his wife — a lobbyist and high-earning member of the professional right — earned no non-investment income whatsoever while she was working at the right-wing Heritage Foundation. When asked to explain this error, Thomas — who is one of the nine people responsible for issuing binding interpretations of the nation’s founding document — claimed that he “misunderst[ood] the filing instructions.”
Potential Conflict of Interest: Ginni Thomas, Justice Thomas’ wife, used to lead an organization that vigorously opposes the Affordable Care Act, and she even briefly signed a memo calling that Act unconstitutional. Ginni also may be earning lobbying fees for working to have this Act repealed. A team of conservative lawyers recently argued that such activities by a judge’s spouse requires the judge to recuse from the lawsuits challenging the ACA, but Thomas’ defiant speech to the Federalist Society leaves little doubt that he will not recuse.
A Financial Stake in His Own Decisions?: Ginni Thomas may also be getting rich off of her husband’s vote in the infamous Citizens United decision — which freed corporations to spend billions of dollars to buy U.S. elections. Ginni’s new lobbying firm “offers advice on optimizing political investments for charitable giving in the non-profit world or political causes,” a line of work which has obviously become much more lucrative since Citizens United.
Discredited Understanding of the Constitution: Perhaps most disturbingly, Thomas embraces a discredited theory of the Constitution which would return America to a time when federal child labor laws were considered unconstitutional. Other cherished accomplishments that would likely cease to exist in Clarence Thomas’ America include “the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the sick leave portions of the Family and Medical Leave, the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act, as well as minimum wage and maximum hour laws.”
So the truth is that ThinkProgress and other Thomas doubters hardly deserve the credit he gives us for undermining the Court’s credibility. Justice Thomas is inflicting far greater wounds on the Court’s legitimacy than any of his critics could ever cause.
Stamford,
I did see the Thurgood Marshall movie. I occur with your review!
How many laws and ethical breaches and conflicts does a justice have to have to cause the Chief Justice to begin to clean the nest that only he or an impeachment can clean?
One has to wonder if there were not some subconscious racial statement being made by Reagan to appoint such an unqualified Black man for the Supreme court, when there had to have been others with vastly better intellectual and moral qualifications.
Granted she was a Democrat but for intellectual capacity and a clean slate, Barbara Jordan comes quickly to mind.
Marnie,
What can a Chief Justice do to stop Justice Thomas? I am not aware of any disciplinary measures that a chief justice can utilize.
Marnie,
I believe it was President George H. W. Bush who nominated Clarence Thomas.
Elaine,
You would be correct that Bush the First nominated Thomas.
I’m losing my home because a $100,000 attorney fee shifting award was issued “sua sponte” without an order to show cause. I had a valid cause of action and I told the truth about every single detail and correctly quoted every authority. My experience with federal courts has been totally awful. The awfulness of federal courts must come from the top.
Everyone on the bench of SCOTUS believes they are the law, at least when they can get four of their buddies to agree with them. Thomas is just more blatant about it.
When we stop treating the Court as infallible on any subject, we’ll be getting somewhere. In that respect, Thomas is (inadvertently) doing great things (in the same sense that Nixon did great things by making our presidents more fallible). Never shut up, Clarence Thomas.
“One has to wonder if there were not some subconscious racial statement being made’
Marnie,
There absolutely was a racial statement being made which was that G.H.W. Bush was saying in effect “up yours” liberals, you don’t have the guts to block a black man, even if he’s an incompetent political hack. Many Democrats lacked the guts and so a great man was replaced by a hack.
It is beyond time to begin the process of impeachment. This sorry excuse for a justice is not worthy to tie the shoes of Thurgood Marshall. He has used his seat on the highest court for his and his wife’s political purposes quite long enough. How much more illegality has to be shown before action is taken? A few more hundred thousand dollars?
amati1684,
I couldn’t agree more, but I don’t think that it can happen in this hyper-partisan atmosphere (not without Democratic majorities large enough to impeach and convict on their own – plus some to spare – anyway…). It would be political suicide for any Republican member of Congress who voted to impeach or convict – which says quite a lot about the sad state of our politics, in my opinion.
Recycle Your Fashions Review I’ve been surfing on the internet over a few hours now, but I under no circumstances discovered any interesting write-up like yours. It really is pretty value sufficient for me. In my opinion, if all site owners and bloggers made excellent content as you did, cyberspace will be considerably much more valuable than ever before ahead of.Recycle Your Fashions