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
This is a good tip particularly to those fresh to the blogosphere.
Simple but very accurate info… Thanks for sharing this one.
A must read article!
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
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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.
Elaine,
You would be correct that Bush the First nominated Thomas.