Courts

Thomas Responded To His Paper Trail Of Law Breaking With 'My Friends Said It Was Okay.' We Should Expect Better Of Our Judiciary.

We should expect 'Supreme' Jurists to have 'Supreme' Ethics. Is that really too much to ask?

By  
on
clarence-thomas (1)

You wanna give me how much? Yeah let’s keep this between us <3

Following ProPublica’s thorough report on the two decades of Clarence Thomas being mum on the millions of dollars in gifts that he was given by dear friend billionaire Harlan Crow who also just happens to finance the occasional politician here and there, the question on many people’s tongues has been “What now?” Impeachment? Stricter codes of judicial conduct for Supreme Court justices — which is to say — any rules of conduct being applied and enforced?  Thankfully, Clarence Thomas took a moment out of what could be a lavish and completely paid for day to assuage our concerns.

“C’mon man, that? That was just dudes being bros. All the cool kids were doing it. I don’t care though, if you buzzkills really wanna make a big deal about it, I’ll start reporting all the millions of dollars in gifts I’m rolling in.

*Crow yells from the back of the room that he’s gonna keep doing it*

I jest, but no, seriously. Read the actual response to the decades of law breaking  and tell me it isn’t the same answer wearing a respectable robe. Thomas’s weak ass justification was cited as an end all answer in the WSJ:

Justice Thomas said in a Friday statement that “early in my tenure at the court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.” He added that “these guidelines are now being changed,” as the Judicial Conference announced new guidance. “And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future,” the statement said.

And Crow’s thoughts on the matter made the Washington Post:

“We believe Justice Thomas to be one of the greatest Americans of our time, and we believe it is important to make sure as many people as possible learn about him, remember him, and understand the ideals for which he stands,” Crow said in the statement to ProPublica. “We will continue to support projects that advance this goal.”

Sponsored

Funniest thing about this, people are eating this up! The WSJ posted a whole piece about how this is actually about the left being salty that the right has taken over and not actually about twenty years of law breaking and skirting bribery:

The liberal press—pardon the redundancy—has climbed onto its ethical high horse and is demanding “reform” at the Court. “All of this needs robust investigation,” demanded Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin dutifully saluted upon Mr. Whitehouse’s order and said his committee “will act” to impose a new “enforceable code of conduct” for the Court.
This ethics talk is really about setting up an apparatus that politicians can then use against the Justices if there is any transgression, however minor or inadvertent. The claims of corruption are intended to smear the conservative Justices and tarnish the Court to tee up case recusals, impeachment or a Court-packing scheme if Democrats get enough Senate votes to break the filibuster.
It’s all ugly politics, but the left is furious it lost control of the Court, and it wants it back by whatever means possible.

Can we be adults here? How does story telling like this make the light of day? Yes, many on the left are unhappy with, disappointed, angry, maudlin even about the current theocratic court. But one would expect better of an editorial that goes on complaining about “adjectival overkill” to then wave away responsibility with whataboutism:

This conspiracy is so secret that it’s hiding in plain sight. Can anyone imagine such a story ever being written about a liberal Justice on the Court?

I would hope that this would be hard to imagine. It should be hard to think that judges on the highest court are being given millions of dollars in what is totally not quid pro quo and not reporting it in line with federal requirements because their buddy told them it was fine to ignore, regardless of their political ideologies. There is a long tradition of judges avoiding “even the appearance of impropriety”. Pointing out that a judge’s vacation habits look egregiously improprietous is no longer fair game?  And poo-pooing Thomas’ malfeasance with regard to required disclosure as a smear campaign? That’s the thing about the rule of law — everyone has to follow the rules and laws. Oh, and it’s worth mentioning that when you really look at who is involved in the gift giving, Mark Paoletta for example, it is a lot harder to claim that the people doing the bankrolling had no business before the court:

Sponsored

 First, the same people who benefited from the lax status quo continue to fight against any meaningful reforms that might curb the justices’ gravy train. Second, the rules governing Thomas’ conduct over these years, while terribly insufficient, actually did require him to disclose at least some of these extravagant gifts. The fact that he ignored the rules anyway illustrates just how difficult it will be to force the justices to obey the law: Without the strong threat of enforcement, a putative public servant like Thomas will thumb his nose at the law.

…

Thomas’ network of benefactors ensure the justice’s billionaire lifestyle stays off the books. Paoletta testifies before Congress that ethics reforms are evil; Crow funds the Republican lawmakers who ensure ethics reforms don’t pass; and nobody knows the extent of Thomas’ unceasing stream of gifts until ProPublica reporters wrangle the details from yacht crews and flight records.

Another thing about the insistence on imagining if a liberal justice were doing this? First, they’ve been reporting. Second. There’s no need to hypothesize about how folks would respond if a different justice was out here collecting vacation trips from billionaires funding Republican political campaigns. Scalia was doing the same thing. And yes, some of the gifts were from folks who had issues before the Court.

[A]fter Scalia died—at an $800-per-night Texas hunting lodge among still-unknown companions—an enterprising pair of lawyers noticed that his acquaintances had taken to local news outlets to share stories of their hunting escapades with the late justice. Digging deeper, they unearthed evidence of a justice who regularly sat in the lap of luxury, on the dime of wealthy and influential hosts. The evidence also shows how Scalia devised a scheme—tacking private hunting trips onto public speeches—that generally allowed him to avoid detection.
Retired federal Judge Charles Pickering, Scalia’s frequent hunting facilitator, explained: “After it got out that if you took him hunting or fishing that he would come speak, he started getting invitations all over the place.” For example: hearing that Scalia would “do anything if you take him hunting,” Texas lawyer and Republican mega-donor Mark Lanier chartered a plane to take Scalia boar hunting on a private ranch following a speech he gave at Lanier’s alma mater, Texas Tech. As was typical, Scalia’s financial disclosure revealed only that he had received “transportation, food, [and] lodging” for “Lectures,” with Texas Tech as the sole reimbursing party.
The most concerning stories, of course, involve Scalia’s private fraternization with and receipt of free travel from those with cases or ongoing interests before the court.

If this is news to you, I highly recommend you do some digging through the ATL archive for coverage. Hell, I’ll even drop a link to get you started. This Elie piece is a fun time capsule of the scramble in trying to nominate Scalia’s successor.
I don’t care if it’s Scalia or Sotomayor — the notion that you could have a Supreme Court justice in your back pocket because you took them on a nice lil safari should be anathema to any good faith actor on the political spectrum. Adults should be able to recognize that there is a difference between a smear campaign and shit hitting the fan. This is the latter.
Earlier: Judge That Received Millions In Unreported Gifts Over Two Decades Had The Gall To Sit On A Bribery Case

Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire [Propublica]
Clarence Thomas Broke the Law and It Isn’t Even Close [Slate]
Clarence Thomas Had the Ideal Tutor for Skirting Ethics Laws [Slate]
Justice Thomas: Advisers Said No Need To Report Travel With GOP Donor [Washington Post]
The Smearing of Clarence Thomas [The Wall Street Journal]

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s.  He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and by tweet at @WritesForRent.

Topics

, , , ,