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
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.
eniobob
That’s hilarious.
“The final mystery is oneself.” – Oscar Wilde
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.
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??
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…’).
eniobob,
It is funny! I am never sure about Sharpton though.
Stamford,
I for one think the answer is yes!
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.
Is it a prerequisite that before joining the GOP/Teabaggers that you must show your ability to play the victim when criticized??
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.”
eniobob,
if they are correct, I sure hope Justice Thomas is well paid for that kind of “work”.
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.
It’s not important,
don’t worry, we all get pissed off enought to say the wrong things at times!
James in LA,
I think you are correct in the reasons why he keeps his mouth shut while on the bench.
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.
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.
It’s not Important,
I would never call Justice Thomas what you called him.
“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
A good judge realizes the need for respect for the courts constrains his own conduct–not the conduct of his critics.
rafflaw said, “Maybe we should call him Thomas the First.”
How about ‘Uncle Tom’?
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.