Clarence Thomas has once again become an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. Even his nomination was a farce with reports of his addiction to porn, reports of his references to “Long Dong Silver,” and “pubic hairs on Coke cans.” Anita Hill testified to his sexual harassment, but Republicans and, notably, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden of the Democratic Party wouldn’t acknowledge it. If the three other witnesses with similar claims were allowed to testify, the outcome might have become different, but Biden wouldn’t let them be heard.
Once Thomas was seated on the Supreme Court, he had nothing to say, literally nothing. He often went years without speaking during oral arguments, preferring to let his opinions and votes speak for themselves. Maybe he thought he’d said enough during his confirmation hearings when he referred to the criticism of him as a “high-tech lynching.”
As Thomas settled in at the Court, he became known as one of its most conservative members. He became friends with the most conservative Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia. When Scalia died in 2016. Thomas took up the mantle of being the most conservative. He was opposed to affirmative action though he himself benefited when being admitted to Princeton undergraduate and Yale Law School. He supported voter suppression laws as if he hadn’t seen their effect firsthand while growing up in Georgia. He backed the Blue but never the Brown when it came to police brutality and mass incarceration. If he were ever concerned about ever appearing to show too much support for Black people, he needn’t have worried.
People have long worried about his wife Ginni’s ties to conservative special interest groups. She had links to individuals and groups that had business before the Court, and we were to believe they never discussed matters with each other. Ginni had hundreds of thousands of dollars of unreported income. During the days surrounding the January 6th insurrection, she passed texts between the principal players urging the overthrow of our government. Clarence remained untouched, aided by the fact the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has no ethics code and is specifically exempt from the ethics code that applies to every other federal judge and that once applied to them before their elevation to the highest Court.
Chief Justice John Roberts first addressed the absence of an ethics code for SCOTUS in his 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. He said:
“The lower courts’ code is a good starting point for ethics inquiries. Nonetheless, there is no reason to adopt a SCOTUS code because members of the SCOTUS consult a wide variety of other sources for guidance. In addition, current iterations of the judicial code do not adequately answer some of the ethical considerations unique to the Supreme Court, and no compilation of ethical rules can guarantee integrity.” — Chief Justice John Roberts
Whoever Clarence Thomas has been consulting they have done a terrible job. It was recently reported that Thomas and his wife Ginni had accepted gifts, including travel by private plane, resort stays, and an island-hopping tour from a luxury yacht, all from Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow. The cost of one trip to Indonesia alone was valued at $500,000. Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal judges are required, like certain other government officials, to complete financial disclosure reports annually.
Clarence Thomas disclosed none of his annual trips with Harlan Crow and his family. After a day of silence, Thomas released a statement that basically said he didn’t have to report these gifts from a friend and that it was someone with no business before the Court. Justices are generally required to report contributions of $415 or higher. It is unusual for Justices to release public statements in response to news reports, yet here we are.
“Harlan and Kathy Crow are among our dearest friends, and we have been friends for over twenty-five years. As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than the quarter century we have known them.
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. I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines.
These guidelines are now being changed, as the committee of the Judicial Conference responsible for financial disclosure for the entire federal judiciary just this past month announced new guidance. And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future.” — Clarence Thomas
The record should reflect that the “friendship” between Thomas and Crow began after Clarence was nominated to the highest Court in the land. Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee that oversees SCOTUS, had a succinct response:
“Oh, please! — Shelton Whitehouse
Harlon Crow has donated millions of dollars to groups with business before the Court and, besides the millions in travel-related gifts to the Thomas’s. He gave $500K to a tea-party associated group that at the time paid Ginni Thomas $120,000 annually. Many others with business before the Court attended some of these lavish vacation trips. Leonard Leo was a frequent guest. Leo controls an almost billion-dollar fund dedicated to appointing conservative judges. Thomas once called Leo the “№ 3 most powerful person in the world.”
Other guests include members of the Federalist Society and other groups who often give amicus briefs (friends of the Court) before Thomas and the other justices. While Crow may personally have no business before the Court, it’s clear that he’s put people in the same room with Thomas that do, and it should have been disclosed.
Chief Justice Roberts has cared more than some of the other Republican-appointed justices about the Court’s public image. He worries about their approval ratings as they continue to sink. The latest revelation about Clarence Thomas will do nothing to help their ratings. Roberts has yet to respond to allegations that Thomas has been bought and ignored early calls that Thomas should be impeached. Clarence Thomas has added to the appearance of impropriety that surrounds this Court. The remaining question is, what is anyone going to do about it? Democrats in the Senate have promised an investigation; maybe they’ll update the letter they wrote a year ago. We will see!
—
This post was previously published on William Spivey’s blog.
***
You Might Also Like These From The Good Men Project
Join The Good Men Project as a Premium Member today.
All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS.
A $50 annual membership gives you an all access pass. You can be a part of every call, group, class and community.
A $25 annual membership gives you access to one class, one Social Interest group and our online communities.
A $12 annual membership gives you access to our Friday calls with the publisher, our online community.
Register New Account
Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.
—
Photo credit: iStock