Here is today’s column in the Los Angeles Times (Sunday) on the recent remarks from Justice Clarence following criticism for his disclosure violations and alleged conflicts of interest.
Louis XIV of France was infamous for his view that there was no distinction between himself and the state, allegedly proclaiming “L’État, c’est moi” (“I am the State”). That notorious merging of personality with an institution was again on display in a February speech by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas before the conservative Federalist Society.
Thomas used the friendly audience to finally address a chorus of criticism over his alleged conflicts of interest and violation of federal disclosure rules concerning his wife’s income. Rather than answer these questions, however, Thomas denounced his critics as “undermining” the court and endangering the country by weakening core institutions.
In January, Common Cause released documents showing that Thomas had attended events funded by conservative billionaires David and Charles Koch. Thomas was even featured in Koch promotional material — along with Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others — for events that sought financial and political support for conservative political causes.
Worse yet, Common Cause discovered that Thomas had failed to disclose a source of income for 13 years on required federal forms. Thomas stated that his wife, Virginia, had no income, when in truth she had hundreds of thousands of dollars of income from conservative organizations, including roughly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation between 2003 and 2007. Thomas reported “none” in answering specific questions about “spousal non-investment income” on annual forms — answers expressly made “subject to civil and criminal sanctions.”
In the interests of full disclosure, I was consulted by Common Cause before the release of the Thomas documents. I found the violations regarding Virginia Thomas’ income particularly alarming.
Virginia Thomas was receiving money from groups that had expressed direct interest in the outcome of cases that came before her husband, including Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, in which the court in 2010 struck down limitations on corporate contributions to elections.
A justice is expressly required by federal law to recuse himself from any case “in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This law specifically requires recusal when he knows that “his spouse … has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”
The financial disclosure forms are meant to assist the public in determining conflicts of interest. Though Thomas clearly could argue that his wife’s ties to these organizations were not grounds for recusal, he denied the court and the public the ability to fully evaluate those conflicts at the time. Instead, Thomas misled the public for years on the considerable wealth he and his wife were accumulating from ideological groups.
After Common Cause detailed the violations, Thomas simply wrote a brief letter to the court saying that the information was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.”
It is unclear how Thomas will rule in the next case in which an individual is accused of a failure to disclose on tax or other government forms. Thomas is viewed as one of the least sympathetic justices to such defenses. Indeed, last year, he joined a decision in Jerman vs. Carlisle that rejected a defense from debt collectors that their violations were due to misunderstandings of the requirements of federal law and just “bona fide errors.” In rejecting the claim that such errors were not intentional, the court reminded the defendants that “we have long recognized the common maxim, familiar to all minds, that ignorance of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally.”
None of these issues, however, was addressed by Thomas in his speech to the Federalist Society. Instead, Thomas suggested that his critics were endangering freedom by undermining his authority and, by extension, the authority of the court. He insisted that his wife was being attacked because she believes in the same things he does and because they were “focused on defending liberty.” 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.”
That was Thomas’ Louis XIV moment. Thomas appears to have finally merged his own personality with the institution itself. Thus, any criticism — even criticism that he is harming the court — is an attack on the institution. It is more than an embarrassing conceit; it can be a dangerous delusion for any justice.
The Supreme Court is not composed of nine Atlas-like jurists holding up justice in the United States. Rather, the foundations are laid in the rule of law, which speaks to all Americans in the same voice. The court is “credible,” to use Thomas’ word, because it is not the extension of the jurists themselves but the law that they are required to follow.
“I am the Court” sounds little better than “I am the State.” We will continue to “enjoy” the liberties of this nation not by the grace or grandeur of Justice Thomas but by the simple triumph of principle over personalities.
Jonathan Turley is as professor of law at George Washington University, where he teaches a class on the Supreme Court.
March 6, 2011
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2009/06/mary_mccarty_sentenced_prison_bogenschutz.php
the wheels of justice…
It is time to remove Thomas from the bench
I believe you…..Anita.
Michael,
What’s to overcome, he’s on the court till he retires or is impeached. We couldn’t get a war criminal impeached, let alone a tax cheat.
What will happen if the Missouri disbarment proceeding is successful? Even though you don’t have to be an attorney to sit on the Supreme Court, wouldn’t that be a scandal too nasty to overcome?
So let’s see. There’s no tax evasion on the part of he or his wife right? But geithner and all those other tax cheats, Nannie immigration cheats, cronie politics from the current gang d’ graft sob’s get a pass as “this is how it works”? As Michael states in a Godfather movie “we are both part of the same hypocrisy”.
I will be frank. Americans care about what the media influences them to care about. The American media, in my opinion subdued, if not muzzled, by corporate ownership, will not take this story and run with it. The only runaway freight trains in our media discourse are designed to harm progressive policies, as was done with the health care bill, or promote corporate friendly policies, as is currently happening with the emphasis on fixing the ‘America-destroying’ deficit using exclusively spending cuts and eschewing tax increases.
There is no benefit to corporations from calling out Clarence Thomas, but there is believable evidence that discrediting him would hurt them. There will be no attention paid to his unethical behavior.
To me the most disturbing thing about Thomas is that he is too stupid and unaware to at least see his transgressions. A self-serving ass, that actually believes he belongs where he is.
As to rich’s comments re: Common Cause, I pretty much feel the same way, its’ “bi-partisanship” is its’ greatest wekness, since it sets up equivalence between
between reasonable and self-interested, aggressive greed.
Sometimes one’s opponents are just bad, crazy people.
anon nurse 1, March 6, 2011 at 9:39 am:
Good Sunday Morning to you.
“…..they were “focused on defending liberty.”
Looking solely at the Citizens United decision it is fair to ask Justice Thomas to explain exactly whos liberty was defended? And then there’s Bush v Gore—same question. And the list goes on.
K,
What are the issues that you have…. I read your blog… I think it is disturbing if that is how you really are…subjective reality…
Thomas’ response has been been predictable, so I return to my usual question–what is Common Cause (or anyone else) going to do next? What are the avenues of legal recourse and who is in a good position to exercise them? My past observation of Common Cause has always been that they were a gentile, upper middle class outfit that was slow to adopt technology, slow to really see what was going on with conservatives (perhaps because of a need to maintain a “bipartisan” image, and ultimately driven toward solutions that often were anti-democratic. In this case, technical legal knowledge and thoughtful research obviously are needed, but a white glove, college boy liberalism is not. Thomas, along with his ideological soulmate, Scalia should never have been elevated to the Court. It’s time to stop complaining and try to remove them or at least figure out how to regulate their behavior.
anon nurse,
Good to see you.
“After Common Cause detailed the violations, Thomas simply wrote a brief letter to the court saying that the information was ‘inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.’”
Justice Thomas can’t read and comprehend filing instructions well enough to properly comply, yet he is entrusted with deciding legal cases of incredible complexity? Unbelievable.
“…you need these institutions to be credible and to be fully functioning to protect your liberties…”
He is one Justice who is making the Supreme Court a less credible institution.
“He insisted that his wife was being attacked because she believes in the same things he does and because they were “focused on defending liberty.”
“Defending liberty”, my a….
My apologies for mis-spellings in my post.
To Anonymously Yours, your comment demonstrates a complete disregard for the contents and substance of Prof. Turley’s post, and speaks volumes about your stiking lack of common decency and intellect. No wonder you hide behind “Anonymously Yours”. The professor whould do well to DELETE your comment.
To Prof. Turley: Thank you for your comments regarding Justice Thomas’ indiscretions. I would ask if you believe our DOJ or House Judiciary Committee has the courage to properly investigate this matter. If not, I fear “the rule of Law” in this country turns on political ideology rather than “equal justice under the Law”.
The mask begins to further slip revealing the monster that lies beneath.
He may be a Kock Slut but what does that make his wife? I am sure that she is better than BP in sucking and skimming…. But who am I to say….. He may be just as well….