Oh Look! Another Clarence Thomas Ethics Scandal!
Hey Clarence: $686,589 is bigger than zero.
(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Clarence and Ginni Thomas are a veritable conservative power couple. He’s a Supreme Court justice boldly re-writing established precedent to shape the country to his proclivities. She’s a far-right operative that has her hands in the pots of all the hot-button issues. And that’s caused some problems for Clarence, what with justices and the appearance of impropriety and all that.
Like we know Ginni was working harder than Kris Jenner after Donald Trump lost the 2020 election — the January 6th committee even wants to talk to her about it. But despite her involvement, Clarence Thomas went on to hear a case about the January 6th committee — and shockingly! — he was the lone dissent when the Court rejected Trump’s efforts to block the release of presidential records to the committee. Hmmm… sus.
The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm
But despite the repeated calls for recusals or resignation, well, the Supreme Court doesn’t actually *have* an ethical code they’re bound to, so… shrug emoji.
Don’t worry, there’s another ethical lapse making news.
As reported by the Los Angeles Times:
Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation’s IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled “none” where “spousal noninvestment income” would be disclosed.
Sponsored
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
How Transactional Lawyers Can Better Serve (And Maintain) Their Clients
AI’s Impact On Law Firms Of Every Size
How Transactional Lawyers Can Better Serve (And Maintain) Their Clients
Ginni was also active in Liberty Central in 2009, and Common Cause believes she was paid an unknown salary that year. …And Clarence Thomas also recorded spousal income that year as “none.”
Tisk, tisk.
Stephen Gillers, a professor at NYU School of Law, took a harsh view of the omission, saying, “It wasn’t a miscalculation; he simply omitted his wife’s source of income for six years, which is a rather dramatic omission. It could not have been an oversight.” But, again, without any ethics code for the Supreme Court, and with less than 60 Democratic senators, all that amounts to a hill of beans.
While it’s never a *good* time for a scandal, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is in the toilet. And this kind of ethical lapse reinforces all of the negative connotations the public has about the Court.
Sponsored
Law Firms Now Have A Choice In Their Document Comparison Software
The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).
