Would much rather be obnoxiously friendly, than an obsequious grifter! Clearly, Thomas should suffer some consequence for this activity, but given the current Chief Justice, & his unwillingess to preserve what remaining shred of dignity/integrity the court may enjoy, suspect it'll simply be business as usual. A stronger case for Term Limits could not be made. Reform, now.
Hey A, you're right, Roberts will do nothing about Thomas's corruption. Besides, he has issues of his own that should also be investigated. The Court's conservatives are pretty scummy and our nation is paying for it.
I blame the lawyers who appear before SCOTUS in part by failing to file motions to recuse where appropriate:
28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Need to make a record. IMHO a lawyer is within rights to develop the record as to actual bias.
The ABA has no authority to enforce law. Thomas is liable for collateral attack on his state bar license. Also may have problems with IRS if he did not list "in kind" income or gifts.
Thank you, very much, Daniel, for enlightening me. We are fortunate to have attorneys like you on Substack willing to take the rime to answer our questions
If Clarence Thomas is handed a gold watch by John Roberts next week upon the stunning announcement of his retirement, this could actually work out. And that’s why it won’t work out that way.
Personally, I am holding my breath for 2024, PRAYING 'Muricans FINALLY understand that ONLY a PROGRESSive will help them exist!
Trumplicans LITERALLY want them to SUFFER TERRIBLY. I would go so far to say that it is a sexual fetish for them; they "get off" on hurting living beings. Corporate Democrats do not care either way, as long as they get money and LOTS of it.
Victor: What choice did they have, under the circumstances, with all the voters watching? It was a two-fer: they stuck it to an enemy and looked good to their base in the process.
"Money is the mother's milk of politics," Jesee Unruh. Ca politican. 40's thru 60's. Unless and until money can't buy love nor access, "Houston, we have a problem."
In the classical liberal view as espoused by the founding fathers, a presiding judge should be (presumed) "above the fray". Since we know that is only rarely the case, perhaps "for-life tenure" should be subject to a review process. How would you "reform" judicial tenure?
The idea was for life tenure was supposed to allow them to rule according to the law rather than to decide according to how to retain their position on the court.
Life tenure brings another dynamic into play. I can act however I want because no one can do anything about it.
Thomas's bs about being close personal friends with Harlan Crow is just that--bs. Crow recognized Thomas's voting pattern after Thomas had been on the Court for seven years. Does Harlan Crow have a diverse group of friends from other walks of life otherwise? I cannot imagine that a morbidity wealthy collector of Nazi memorabilia would be interested in being just friends with an angry black man that Thomas appears to be. People who scowl at everyone and rebuff overtures of friendship don't usually have many friends.
The Supreme Court needs to be reformed. It is absolutely corrupt. Its members have come to be on the court through questionable means.
Also, it should not be possible for a nominee to be ignored and stiff armed like Merrick Garland was. I'm not sure the founders would have thought such actions as Moscow Mitch's would have occurred. McConnell, like Thomas, acts in certain ways because he can and there is no accountability.
JennSH from NC ; Yes, they have all the Power and the Glory, and don't even have to be 'nice'. It's all the sweeter when a man like Thomas is both sexist and serves the elites while being Black, harming lower income folks : people of color like any White Christian Nationalist with impunity. I can't help but wonder how he and Ginny feel about some right wing plans to end marriages between races. They must have a good hearty laugh! It will not touch them! (Not that it should anyone).
when the founding fathers created these rules, did they not also have potentially self-interested motives? many of them didn't like the masses, wanted to protect their wealth, were slave-owners, probably secretly envied their British rich cousins(most of whom answered to no one), didn't like participatory democracy if it threatened their way of life. so putting in men for life who thought like them, lived like them, was to ensure their continued power and wealth. because at that time they probably could not conceive of someone unlike them on the court. maybe, who knows?
You are right. James Madison explains to the New York wealthy elite that they should not oppose the Constitution because it protects their interests against the masses in Federalist paper number 10. The system works the way it was intended to work.
That is partially true, Paul. They were wealthy, white, male and a lot of land (and slave) owners. But, on reading their writings, you get the sense that at least some of them wanted better things. That Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness were really things they thought should be available (at least to all white, males). I think they simply couldn't imagine the degree of corruption that we live with (and largely ignore) today. Any more than they (living with 4 million other Amercians) could imagine 340 million today. Or internet, planes, trains, and global warfare.
Those who know US History, know this country was founded by COMPANIES for PROFIT. The "founding fathers" colonized, stole, enslaved, raped, murdered, defrauded. No matter how effin' "brilliant" they were, how exquisitely they wrote, they were, for the most part, racist, misogynistic, elitist men with their eyes on their "profit prize." WE, THE PEOPLE CAN DO BETTER!
cathleen707 - i completely agree with you, but rarely put it so succinctly and bluntly. what you've described is the basic roots of capitalism, starting with mercantilism in the 15th and 16th centuries. with the blessing of the catholic church, no less. convert them or do with them as you will. i see the current pope has made some conciliatory remarks about it. anyway, i hope we the people can do better, but as i get older, i fear the worst. the problem partly is 8 billion of us all wanting the good life that we white boys stole from everyone else. Ghandhi said there is enough for everyone's needs, but not enough for eveyone's greed. i've been wondering for a long time how much does any one person need? why do rich people never have enough?
Cathleen, your judgement seems harsh, even if correct. It seems to me that this is how change happens. If it happened any faster we would sacrifice the idea of “continuity”.
Paul, you are undoubtedly right but I cannot imagine how else a society can ensure fairness and continuity. When it comes to fairness and discernment, appointment as a senior judge (at a Federal level) is about as close as we come to recognizing merit. Once we have found someone like that s/he is surely worth keeping. So we make the appointment “for life” subject to removal for “impeachable” offenses. Impeachment is and must remain a political act because it is society’s prerogative to remove a sitting judge.
Maybe ruling on things based on retaining their position might be a good idea. Take for instance their abortion ruling Roe v Wade if they voted on the basis of retaining their position they would have said hey 65% of the population of the United States is pro women's rights and wants to allow women to have the right to control over their bodies. They might just have voted correctly on Roe v Wade instead of putting out this religious Cowboy group that they did.
Agreed. It was, in theory, to make the position less political to ensure legal rulings based in sound jurisprudence, instead of risking political influence from running for re-elections. Ironic, then, that the shrinking appeal of one major party's platform essentially made it a politically and ideologically influenced appointment. I also doubt that any of the framers imagined people routinely living into their nineties when they drafted this either.
It goes without saying that lavish influence, from "dearest friends" or not, is bad for our courts. I also believe that our judicial arm should issue rulings based on the Spirit of the Constitution; one hinged on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all responsible citizens that respect their fellow citizens and environment, in addition to the seemingly perfunctory respect for our military, laws and nation. Our laws should not be constrained nor restricted to interpretation based on the thinking of the men writing it at that time. Think about it: if we really held so strictly to the framers' thinking, five of our current Justices wouldn't even be fully enabled citizens, much less confirmed to the SCOTUS.
AND, if we weren't in the throes of horrific political corruption in this country, right now, some would never have made it on to the court and we would be able to impeach, at least, Thomas.
Madison argued for life tenure on the federal bench on the grounds that this lessens corruption and job seeking, but if Congress wanted to remove not just lessen these evils, its easy to do --- just require the judge to file annual reports of any gifts of any size or sort, make them public, and require review, disgorgement and penalties.
It's a simple correction, make the judges follow the existing protocols put in place to direct the acceptance of gifts and gratuities by all elected members of our government. The judges are bribable, to ensure their continued honesty they need to know their actions will be scrutinized on the same levels as everyone else.
This subject will never leave us until we make a decision as to what to do with it as a country, not a bunch of squabbling little municipalities some refer to as states. Our country works on the premise that the majority rules. OK, let's make that happen. Put the issue of abortion on the ballot as a national referendum in 2024. Let the people of our country voice their opinion once and for all. The majority will make their true feelings known. I already know the outcome of such a vote, the minority position will just have to accept the results, because the only position to hold on the abortion issue is that of pro-choice. If the subject offends you because of your religious beliefs just don't use it. As a minority you don't have the right to dictate policy to the majority. It's just not the American way.
After the abortion issue has passed the states can then hash out the guidelines. It's such a huge problem for the entire country and the solution is so simple. Let the people say what they want.
I'm not an expert, but have listened to many within the justice community, & the general consensus seems to land around 18 years, providing continuity with successive administrations.
An alternative might be for the President, the House and the Senate to move specifically to make a judicial appointment "for life". This would be tantamount to endoresement by the entire United States political establishment.
I also believe that during confirmation, credible accusations of legal or ethical misconduct should immediately disqualify a candidate. That will force a thorough investigation of any nominee prior to sitting before the senate. I also think pushing a candidate through such as the orange traitor did when RBG passed should not be allowed.
Yes, other accusations against Thomas were never investigated and the same thing happened with Kavanaugh. People oppose these nominations at some peril.
Love of country, I believe, was supposed to be the great motivator for supreme court justices. Being quite naïve to politics and history I have always assumed the justices were impartial and held the welfare of the country and it's laws up as their highest motivator. It is becoming disappointingly obvious that the supreme court is just another political entity with justices that have great love for only themselves.
Constant, fair oversight with enforceable AND enforced sanctions. See Daniel Solomon's comment above. Just add "intestinal fortitude," lacking in the "lackeys."
A Ellis Dunn: Thomas has violated the financial disclosure rules and has been fined several times. The rules apply not only to him but to his wife.
Actions that the Department of Justice May Take
Civil Action
5 U.S.C. app. § 104(a)(1); 5 C.F.R. § 2634.701(b)
The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or who knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. § 102.
The Attorney General may bring a criminal action against any individual who:
knowingly and willfully falsifies information required to be reported or
knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report.
Because he failed to disclose repeatedly, IMHO applies: 18 U.S. Code § 1621 - Perjury generally
Whoever—
(1)having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2)in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
I've listened to Barb McQuade, Joyce Vance & Jill Wine-Banks discuss the specific ways in which Thomas has breached both ethical & legal responsibilities, & while not a legal expert myself, I agree that the rules, as they relate to his behavior aren't ambiguous. Thanks for taking the time to craft a clear & concise response.
So is a perjury conviction criminal and at the "beyond reasonable doubt" requirement? We have many laws and regulations that on the surface should protect the public and the system, but are seldom, if ever, monitored and enforced. The excuse is usually that the department is underfunded. The money always seems to be there for the defense budget. And how much of that is unaccounted for?
Isn't it amazing that we have to make sure to dot every "i" and cross every "t" when pursuing and charging empowered scoundrels? The average person would already have been punished, fined, fired, or all of the above for noncompliance in disclosing a gift over $100. We're talking about Thomas's nondisclosure of gifts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Obviously, acting obsequiously to the obstreparous obstructionist, no matter how obtuse, obnoxious or obsessive he might be, can objectively create obstacles for our justice system, which has become ever more obsolete.
Fully agree, how disingenuous to claim that he didn't know? If I tried to claim ignorance with the IRS my ass would be in jail because it is my responsibility to know what is right and wrong. How could a high-level lawyer not know? Not only should be he removed from the court, he should be prosecuted for his crimes.
There is very little accountability for the rich and powerful in the country, and Clarence and Gini Thomas are two powerful grifters who fit such lack of accountability for their many crimes to a tee.
I've signed many a petition demanding Thomas be impeached or resign, but I know these actions won't occur, because his duty is to the Federalist Society and all those who would see this country revert back to the 19th century.
This greatest threat to what's left of our democracy comes from within not outside, as the Thomases so malignantly and repeatedly demonstrate.
Deborah, Thomas is very useful to the ultra-right, the Federalist Society, and the rest. He is a Black man who fits stereotypes, uses his job for personal gain, and has a lot of rich white friends for whom he is willing to work, all things I suspect the Federalist Society selects its young lawyers/judges for. They are quite skilled at picking the grifters and getting Republican presidents to nominate them and Republican senators to vote them into lifetime appointments. The Federalist Society has a lot of the characteristics of fascist societies of the last century and they care nothing for democracy, just a system they can control and manipulate. All of the current conservatives on the Court have their stamp of approval, and what have those stamped folks done to us, taken away all kinds of rights, championed businesses over workers, allowed blatant political gerrymandering, gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and soooo much more. Where is our Constitution in all that? It's just not there. The Fed. Soc. has trained its candidates well. They can make up excuses and lie with the best of them. Heck, the Fed. Soc. is OK with accused sex offenders and total partisans on the court too. Disgusting! I wish I had a better word to state what I am really feeling.
The practical and long term solution is "political control" of the House and the Senate. I am not sure though that controlling the legislative process is enough. In Clarence Thomas' case, it was clearly a question of "affirmative action" gone wrong. Morally and ethically speaking, we are not all equal. In 1991 there most certainly were "other issues" under foot, including women's rights.
Just to add another layer of this seedy saga, who knows what else went on while on these exotic private trips! There is a smell of a Jeffery Epstein situation. I have a feeling Harlan Crow has more than a few peccadilloes. And we know from sworn testimony that Clearence Thomas has sexual nastiness in his being. He is corrupt and creepy on many levels, if you ask me!
We also don't know what else Thomas has accepted/participated in because he obviously doesn't think the rules apply to him. These trips went undisclosed for 2 decades! What else was he up to?
As a Sonoma County, Ca resident of over 50 years, I can relate, with certainty, that Bohemian Grove Summer Gathering of uber rich and some famous MEN, each summer near Monte Rio, Ca, is the "Animal House" gathering of those who should know better! Evidently, Justice Thomas' "close friendship" allows him acess there also. Something more to CROW about!
"Thomas issued a statement last Friday — explaining that the reason he hadn’t disclosed any of this was that Crow and his wife are among Clarence and Ginni Thomases’ 'dearest friends' and that 'as friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them.'"
"Thomas further explained that he thought he didn’t need to report these gifts on annual disclosure forms because when he first joined the court he was told that 'personal hospitality from close personal friends' need not be reported."
AND what if those "close personal friends" are bank robbers? Embezzlers? Scammers? Elizabeth Holmes? Sam Bankman-Fried? Trump? Would a that deep fraternal bond with THEM make taking their gifts all hunky-dory?
As for
"I knew Clarence Thomas when he was 23 years old. We never became close personal friends. (Although I made every effort to be friendly toward him at Yale Law School, he always responded to my overtures with an angry scowl."
It may just be, Bob, that that scowl was born of his knowledge that you simply hadn't the financial wherewithal to ply him with the kind of gifts that we now know he sees as his due. Paraphrasing Restoration-era British playwright William Congreve, well-placed wealth hath charms to soothe the savage scowl.
Lastly, every time Ginni Thomas is mentioned in the press she is described as a "conservative activist."
She is anything BUT an activist -- she is a PAID political OPERATIVE, who is almost certainly compensated far beyond what her husband earns on the Court and, as with all married couples, their funds are commingled: when Ginni's bread is buttered, Clarence's is in equal measure, and the malfeasences she commits to earn that compensation are his as well.
The Dishonorable Justice, Clarence Thomas, the longest serving member of the incumbent court, has no ethical integrity! His extremely lavish lifestyle since becoming family friends with Harlan Crow 25 years ago, has drawn much criticism. By the way, Clarence Thomas was elected by the Senate 52 to 48 to the SCOTUS on October 15, 1991, 31 yrs ago, the narrowest margin since 1881. Remember Anita Hill?
How can any function of Government not have a code of ethics? Maybe they should rename them the “Supreme Being Court Of The United States”
And let’s not forget that Ginni has hundreds of thousands in unrecorded income herself. And they both bathe in snobby piety, holier than thou 300 million times over. If Justice Thomas were to be subject to the ethics guidelines that all but 12 judges in America need to abide by he’d have been gone before his first gray hair.
If a Supreme Court Justice has no more grasp of basic judicial ethics than Clarence Thomas exhibits, at least outwardly, then the lack of a code of conduct for the Supreme Court is the least of its problems.
Unfortunately, this system is what we have. If we're lucky, Thomas might be impeached. But I'm quite sure that's not going to happen. At the same time, my bet is that there are many thugs just like him. We have a system that supposedly found Dr. Anita Hill credible, and yet, Thomas was allowed to ascend to a seat in the highest court. The same system also found Dr. Christine Ford credible, and yet, the beer-loving frat boy was allowed to ascend as well. We may be able to expose and get rid of one or two of these thugs, but that's just a drop in the ocean. Just like we have reached the point of no return with the climate, I think we are at the point of no return with political corruption. Unless we completely overhaul the education system and start teaching reasoning and modern history (not the made-up revisionist ones), we won't have a future.
Yes, but does this need always to be the case? I think a case can be made for reorienting the Constitution and starting over with a more flexible document. Anyone can see that "the right to bear arms" is really "the right to bear muskets" and that the right to free speech was never intended to apply to corporations. Yet because the Constitution is regarded as lapidary, it is always open to interpretation, and therefore inherently undemocratic.
The fact is, the US has a system of government based on the system of government in London in 1787 (President = King; Senate =House of Lords; House of Representatives = Parliament). Unfortunately, the US system has been cemented in place by the Constitution, whereas in the UK, without a written constitution, the King is now to be found only in the tabloids, and the House of Lords is basically a drinking club.
I definitely agree. But I don't see how we can reorient the system (in a broad sense here) without splitting the population even more. That's why I think we should chalk up what we currently have as a loss and start over. And to build from bottom up, we need people to not repeat the accumulated mistakes we've made. To do that, we need to teach kids how we got here (For God's sake, we have more than half the population thinking that Reagan was the best thing that's happened to this country. And not many realize that we're currently repeating the same mistakes we've made leading up to the Great Depression and the WW2). I just hope kids are smart enough to reason through our mistakes and come out at the other end better than what our generation has done.
On the silk turtle neck that Thomas wore in a recent interview are the monogrammed initials HC - the turtle neck is apparently a gift that Harlan Crow bestows on his friends. But, as my wife pointed out, the monogram may also be seen as a brand - something familiar to any Texan.
I know Clarence Thomas is and has always been no more than a mediocre judge and was only picked by Bush Senior for the Court as a slap in the face to Black America, but he is bright enough to know what corruption is and that he is participating in it. Then, there's the interview he gave recently where he explains how he likes the "simple life" with vacations in an RV. Lying doesn't seem to be much of a problem for our Justice Thomas!
Because of his position as a Supreme Court Justice, this just might be the most disillusioning moment that has occurred in my 78 yrs of observing politics and human nature. Another reminder that, as my pal, Fred, often says, "If you find yourself to be disillusioned, you shouldn't have allowed yourself to become illusioned in the first place."
“When somebody says it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.” - H.L. Mencken
"Truth is always the enemy of power. And power the enemy of truth." - Edward Abbey
You are so right. It is so sinister to try to justify pure corruption by friendship. Thomas is obviously arrogant and thinks that the rest of us are stupid idiots whom he, his wife and their friends should rule over. Defend the American Republic. Impeach him.
Great piece, Robert, but will anything actually be DONE? I think articles like yours shine a light on the shadows, and thanks for that but it is a bit depressing to think he'll just brazen it out and carry on regardless.
I do not expect Clarence Thomas, the most corrupt judge in American history ,will suffer any adverse consequences stemming from his innate corruption. Democrats seem to timid to impeach him and even if they do, insufficient votes exist in Congress there to convict him Rather his judicial philosophy and decisions will continue to poison American Sociery for years to come.
I wonder if Thomas' scowl at Yale was because he had no more right to be there than he currently does to sit on SCOTUS. Insecure people who know they have gotten something they do not deserve and did not earn can be like that.
This is more prescient than most of us could ever understand.
Imagine for an instance that Clarence Thomas is a product of "affirmative action". I happen to support the idea of affirmative action, but can just as quickly imagine the consequences of "affirmative action" gone wrong, that is, without guard rails.
As I was reading Robert Reich in his excoriating short treatise on Clarence Thomas and his dear, rich friends, I couldn't help hearing a tango in it's cadence, in it's elegant and pointed preciseness, and somehow the deservedly venomous and exacting wit of Jane Austen in her social commentaries. Try it, read it again, and think of a tango and Jane Austen. TOUCHE' could never mean as much.
Would much rather be obnoxiously friendly, than an obsequious grifter! Clearly, Thomas should suffer some consequence for this activity, but given the current Chief Justice, & his unwillingess to preserve what remaining shred of dignity/integrity the court may enjoy, suspect it'll simply be business as usual. A stronger case for Term Limits could not be made. Reform, now.
Hey A, you're right, Roberts will do nothing about Thomas's corruption. Besides, he has issues of his own that should also be investigated. The Court's conservatives are pretty scummy and our nation is paying for it.
I blame the lawyers who appear before SCOTUS in part by failing to file motions to recuse where appropriate:
28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Need to make a record. IMHO a lawyer is within rights to develop the record as to actual bias.
Abe Fortas, dammit.
Thank you Daniel. Can the American Bar Association do nothing to enforce this code? If not what agency can?
The ABA has no authority to enforce law. Thomas is liable for collateral attack on his state bar license. Also may have problems with IRS if he did not list "in kind" income or gifts.
Thank you, very much, Daniel, for enlightening me. We are fortunate to have attorneys like you on Substack willing to take the rime to answer our questions
If Clarence Thomas is handed a gold watch by John Roberts next week upon the stunning announcement of his retirement, this could actually work out. And that’s why it won’t work out that way.
Personally, I am holding my breath for 2024, PRAYING 'Muricans FINALLY understand that ONLY a PROGRESSive will help them exist!
Trumplicans LITERALLY want them to SUFFER TERRIBLY. I would go so far to say that it is a sexual fetish for them; they "get off" on hurting living beings. Corporate Democrats do not care either way, as long as they get money and LOTS of it.
Corporate Democrats =spineless jellyfish. Or snakes in the grass.
Yet they voted to impeach Trump. Give them credit for that.
Look. Both parties drink from the very same poisoned well of corporate funds. Until and unless...same old, same old.
Not even all of them though!
Victor: What choice did they have, under the circumstances, with all the voters watching? It was a two-fer: they stuck it to an enemy and looked good to their base in the process.
Sad, but, imo, TRUE!
"Money is the mother's milk of politics," Jesee Unruh. Ca politican. 40's thru 60's. Unless and until money can't buy love nor access, "Houston, we have a problem."
Yep, and Jesse Unruh knew of which he talked.
Truer words were never spoken, Daniel, all the way around.
Yeah. Like POND SCUMMY!
Interesting.
In the classical liberal view as espoused by the founding fathers, a presiding judge should be (presumed) "above the fray". Since we know that is only rarely the case, perhaps "for-life tenure" should be subject to a review process. How would you "reform" judicial tenure?
I have no idea why any person has 'life tenure!
The idea was for life tenure was supposed to allow them to rule according to the law rather than to decide according to how to retain their position on the court.
Life tenure brings another dynamic into play. I can act however I want because no one can do anything about it.
Thomas's bs about being close personal friends with Harlan Crow is just that--bs. Crow recognized Thomas's voting pattern after Thomas had been on the Court for seven years. Does Harlan Crow have a diverse group of friends from other walks of life otherwise? I cannot imagine that a morbidity wealthy collector of Nazi memorabilia would be interested in being just friends with an angry black man that Thomas appears to be. People who scowl at everyone and rebuff overtures of friendship don't usually have many friends.
The Supreme Court needs to be reformed. It is absolutely corrupt. Its members have come to be on the court through questionable means.
Also, it should not be possible for a nominee to be ignored and stiff armed like Merrick Garland was. I'm not sure the founders would have thought such actions as Moscow Mitch's would have occurred. McConnell, like Thomas, acts in certain ways because he can and there is no accountability.
JennSH from NC ; Yes, they have all the Power and the Glory, and don't even have to be 'nice'. It's all the sweeter when a man like Thomas is both sexist and serves the elites while being Black, harming lower income folks : people of color like any White Christian Nationalist with impunity. I can't help but wonder how he and Ginny feel about some right wing plans to end marriages between races. They must have a good hearty laugh! It will not touch them! (Not that it should anyone).
when the founding fathers created these rules, did they not also have potentially self-interested motives? many of them didn't like the masses, wanted to protect their wealth, were slave-owners, probably secretly envied their British rich cousins(most of whom answered to no one), didn't like participatory democracy if it threatened their way of life. so putting in men for life who thought like them, lived like them, was to ensure their continued power and wealth. because at that time they probably could not conceive of someone unlike them on the court. maybe, who knows?
You are right. James Madison explains to the New York wealthy elite that they should not oppose the Constitution because it protects their interests against the masses in Federalist paper number 10. The system works the way it was intended to work.
That is partially true, Paul. They were wealthy, white, male and a lot of land (and slave) owners. But, on reading their writings, you get the sense that at least some of them wanted better things. That Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness were really things they thought should be available (at least to all white, males). I think they simply couldn't imagine the degree of corruption that we live with (and largely ignore) today. Any more than they (living with 4 million other Amercians) could imagine 340 million today. Or internet, planes, trains, and global warfare.
Those who know US History, know this country was founded by COMPANIES for PROFIT. The "founding fathers" colonized, stole, enslaved, raped, murdered, defrauded. No matter how effin' "brilliant" they were, how exquisitely they wrote, they were, for the most part, racist, misogynistic, elitist men with their eyes on their "profit prize." WE, THE PEOPLE CAN DO BETTER!
cathleen707 - i completely agree with you, but rarely put it so succinctly and bluntly. what you've described is the basic roots of capitalism, starting with mercantilism in the 15th and 16th centuries. with the blessing of the catholic church, no less. convert them or do with them as you will. i see the current pope has made some conciliatory remarks about it. anyway, i hope we the people can do better, but as i get older, i fear the worst. the problem partly is 8 billion of us all wanting the good life that we white boys stole from everyone else. Ghandhi said there is enough for everyone's needs, but not enough for eveyone's greed. i've been wondering for a long time how much does any one person need? why do rich people never have enough?
Cathleen, your judgement seems harsh, even if correct. It seems to me that this is how change happens. If it happened any faster we would sacrifice the idea of “continuity”.
Absolutely. They could not (would not) conceive of even a woman on the court or in government at all.
interesting. But what you say goes against everything I learned in school. (sarcasm intended)
Paul, you are undoubtedly right but I cannot imagine how else a society can ensure fairness and continuity. When it comes to fairness and discernment, appointment as a senior judge (at a Federal level) is about as close as we come to recognizing merit. Once we have found someone like that s/he is surely worth keeping. So we make the appointment “for life” subject to removal for “impeachable” offenses. Impeachment is and must remain a political act because it is society’s prerogative to remove a sitting judge.
Thanks. Makes sense unfortunately.
HAHA. Jokes on us then.
Maybe ruling on things based on retaining their position might be a good idea. Take for instance their abortion ruling Roe v Wade if they voted on the basis of retaining their position they would have said hey 65% of the population of the United States is pro women's rights and wants to allow women to have the right to control over their bodies. They might just have voted correctly on Roe v Wade instead of putting out this religious Cowboy group that they did.
Agreed. It was, in theory, to make the position less political to ensure legal rulings based in sound jurisprudence, instead of risking political influence from running for re-elections. Ironic, then, that the shrinking appeal of one major party's platform essentially made it a politically and ideologically influenced appointment. I also doubt that any of the framers imagined people routinely living into their nineties when they drafted this either.
It goes without saying that lavish influence, from "dearest friends" or not, is bad for our courts. I also believe that our judicial arm should issue rulings based on the Spirit of the Constitution; one hinged on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all responsible citizens that respect their fellow citizens and environment, in addition to the seemingly perfunctory respect for our military, laws and nation. Our laws should not be constrained nor restricted to interpretation based on the thinking of the men writing it at that time. Think about it: if we really held so strictly to the framers' thinking, five of our current Justices wouldn't even be fully enabled citizens, much less confirmed to the SCOTUS.
I KNOW! That drives me nuts. It is terrible that we can't get them off the bench!!!!
AND, if we weren't in the throes of horrific political corruption in this country, right now, some would never have made it on to the court and we would be able to impeach, at least, Thomas.
Sadly, that is so true.
So never mind how we got here so much as how do we get OUT of this place we are now in due to our political missteps?
Madison argued for life tenure on the federal bench on the grounds that this lessens corruption and job seeking, but if Congress wanted to remove not just lessen these evils, its easy to do --- just require the judge to file annual reports of any gifts of any size or sort, make them public, and require review, disgorgement and penalties.
It's a simple correction, make the judges follow the existing protocols put in place to direct the acceptance of gifts and gratuities by all elected members of our government. The judges are bribable, to ensure their continued honesty they need to know their actions will be scrutinized on the same levels as everyone else.
Gone baby.
Donald Hodgins <silencenotbad@gmail.com>
2:05 PM (1 minute ago)
to 360, Kimberly, Donald
Abortion, again!
Donald Hodgins <silencenotbad@gmail.com>
1:36 PM (0 minutes ago)
This subject will never leave us until we make a decision as to what to do with it as a country, not a bunch of squabbling little municipalities some refer to as states. Our country works on the premise that the majority rules. OK, let's make that happen. Put the issue of abortion on the ballot as a national referendum in 2024. Let the people of our country voice their opinion once and for all. The majority will make their true feelings known. I already know the outcome of such a vote, the minority position will just have to accept the results, because the only position to hold on the abortion issue is that of pro-choice. If the subject offends you because of your religious beliefs just don't use it. As a minority you don't have the right to dictate policy to the majority. It's just not the American way.
After the abortion issue has passed the states can then hash out the guidelines. It's such a huge problem for the entire country and the solution is so simple. Let the people say what they want.
I'm not an expert, but have listened to many within the justice community, & the general consensus seems to land around 18 years, providing continuity with successive administrations.
An alternative might be for the President, the House and the Senate to move specifically to make a judicial appointment "for life". This would be tantamount to endoresement by the entire United States political establishment.
I say no to for life tenure, too ripe for abuse.
I also believe that during confirmation, credible accusations of legal or ethical misconduct should immediately disqualify a candidate. That will force a thorough investigation of any nominee prior to sitting before the senate. I also think pushing a candidate through such as the orange traitor did when RBG passed should not be allowed.
Yes, other accusations against Thomas were never investigated and the same thing happened with Kavanaugh. People oppose these nominations at some peril.
Washington know about Thomas before they appointed him. In fact that is WHY they appointed him.
Love of country, I believe, was supposed to be the great motivator for supreme court justices. Being quite naïve to politics and history I have always assumed the justices were impartial and held the welfare of the country and it's laws up as their highest motivator. It is becoming disappointingly obvious that the supreme court is just another political entity with justices that have great love for only themselves.
Oh yes they are true trumpsters
term limits
Constant, fair oversight with enforceable AND enforced sanctions. See Daniel Solomon's comment above. Just add "intestinal fortitude," lacking in the "lackeys."
A Ellis Dunn: Thomas has violated the financial disclosure rules and has been fined several times. The rules apply not only to him but to his wife.
Actions that the Department of Justice May Take
Civil Action
5 U.S.C. app. § 104(a)(1); 5 C.F.R. § 2634.701(b)
The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or who knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. § 102.
Criminal Action
5 U.S.C. app. § 104(a)(2); 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 5 C.F.R. § 2634.701(c)
The Attorney General may bring a criminal action against any individual who:
knowingly and willfully falsifies information required to be reported or
knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report.
Because he failed to disclose repeatedly, IMHO applies: 18 U.S. Code § 1621 - Perjury generally
Whoever—
(1)having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2)in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 773; Pub. L. 88–619, § 1, Oct. 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 995; Pub. L. 94–550, § 2, Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2534; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
I've listened to Barb McQuade, Joyce Vance & Jill Wine-Banks discuss the specific ways in which Thomas has breached both ethical & legal responsibilities, & while not a legal expert myself, I agree that the rules, as they relate to his behavior aren't ambiguous. Thanks for taking the time to craft a clear & concise response.
So is a perjury conviction criminal and at the "beyond reasonable doubt" requirement? We have many laws and regulations that on the surface should protect the public and the system, but are seldom, if ever, monitored and enforced. The excuse is usually that the department is underfunded. The money always seems to be there for the defense budget. And how much of that is unaccounted for?
Hah! Defense budget. We defend ourselves against the foreign invader but not from corruption
If a criminal action is brought? Yes.
If a civil action is brought? Perjury would not apply.
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-response-trips-legal-experts-harlan-crow
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-doj-campaign-legal-center
Just the threat of an investigation will produce a vacant seat on the SCOTUS! It's worked before: https://hartmannreport.com/p/what-do-pornography-ginny-thomas
Hope you're right.
Now an investigation is obligatory and my hypothesis will get tested:
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=majorinvestigations&utm_content=feature
There were financial disclosure rqmts for SC that Biden signed in 2022. I wonder if they apply here.
Probably not.
Isn't it amazing that we have to make sure to dot every "i" and cross every "t" when pursuing and charging empowered scoundrels? The average person would already have been punished, fined, fired, or all of the above for noncompliance in disclosing a gift over $100. We're talking about Thomas's nondisclosure of gifts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
No it's actually Millions of dollars.
S. Howard, I stand corrected. Based on additional reporting that I've seen since my prior post, your estimate of millions is the better one.
Obviously, acting obsequiously to the obstreparous obstructionist, no matter how obtuse, obnoxious or obsessive he might be, can objectively create obstacles for our justice system, which has become ever more obsolete.
That was an overall ostentatious opine of observance! Love it!
Made me smile, thank you.
OK --oust ornery ones
Oh???
Obsolutely!
Good on you, Jaime
Sign Suds' And Touchy . .
Stop the Persecution of Judge Long Dong . . He hasn't done anything That wrong .
and has always been with us . .Bench entrenched against Witches . .
When /If he shifts, Big Chief Dignity will Gavel the Gong . .# Sam's Petition . .
Fully agree, how disingenuous to claim that he didn't know? If I tried to claim ignorance with the IRS my ass would be in jail because it is my responsibility to know what is right and wrong. How could a high-level lawyer not know? Not only should be he removed from the court, he should be prosecuted for his crimes.
There is very little accountability for the rich and powerful in the country, and Clarence and Gini Thomas are two powerful grifters who fit such lack of accountability for their many crimes to a tee.
I've signed many a petition demanding Thomas be impeached or resign, but I know these actions won't occur, because his duty is to the Federalist Society and all those who would see this country revert back to the 19th century.
This greatest threat to what's left of our democracy comes from within not outside, as the Thomases so malignantly and repeatedly demonstrate.
Deborah, Thomas is very useful to the ultra-right, the Federalist Society, and the rest. He is a Black man who fits stereotypes, uses his job for personal gain, and has a lot of rich white friends for whom he is willing to work, all things I suspect the Federalist Society selects its young lawyers/judges for. They are quite skilled at picking the grifters and getting Republican presidents to nominate them and Republican senators to vote them into lifetime appointments. The Federalist Society has a lot of the characteristics of fascist societies of the last century and they care nothing for democracy, just a system they can control and manipulate. All of the current conservatives on the Court have their stamp of approval, and what have those stamped folks done to us, taken away all kinds of rights, championed businesses over workers, allowed blatant political gerrymandering, gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and soooo much more. Where is our Constitution in all that? It's just not there. The Fed. Soc. has trained its candidates well. They can make up excuses and lie with the best of them. Heck, the Fed. Soc. is OK with accused sex offenders and total partisans on the court too. Disgusting! I wish I had a better word to state what I am really feeling.
You summed up the goals of the Federalist Society and its puppets on the SCOTUS brilliantly.
Brilliant comment, Deborah.
The practical and long term solution is "political control" of the House and the Senate. I am not sure though that controlling the legislative process is enough. In Clarence Thomas' case, it was clearly a question of "affirmative action" gone wrong. Morally and ethically speaking, we are not all equal. In 1991 there most certainly were "other issues" under foot, including women's rights.
Anita Hill would agree.
Just to add another layer of this seedy saga, who knows what else went on while on these exotic private trips! There is a smell of a Jeffery Epstein situation. I have a feeling Harlan Crow has more than a few peccadilloes. And we know from sworn testimony that Clearence Thomas has sexual nastiness in his being. He is corrupt and creepy on many levels, if you ask me!
We also don't know what else Thomas has accepted/participated in because he obviously doesn't think the rules apply to him. These trips went undisclosed for 2 decades! What else was he up to?
One thing we do know, Clearence Thomas was up to no good!
As a Sonoma County, Ca resident of over 50 years, I can relate, with certainty, that Bohemian Grove Summer Gathering of uber rich and some famous MEN, each summer near Monte Rio, Ca, is the "Animal House" gathering of those who should know better! Evidently, Justice Thomas' "close friendship" allows him acess there also. Something more to CROW about!
"Thomas issued a statement last Friday — explaining that the reason he hadn’t disclosed any of this was that Crow and his wife are among Clarence and Ginni Thomases’ 'dearest friends' and that 'as friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them.'"
"Thomas further explained that he thought he didn’t need to report these gifts on annual disclosure forms because when he first joined the court he was told that 'personal hospitality from close personal friends' need not be reported."
AND what if those "close personal friends" are bank robbers? Embezzlers? Scammers? Elizabeth Holmes? Sam Bankman-Fried? Trump? Would a that deep fraternal bond with THEM make taking their gifts all hunky-dory?
As for
"I knew Clarence Thomas when he was 23 years old. We never became close personal friends. (Although I made every effort to be friendly toward him at Yale Law School, he always responded to my overtures with an angry scowl."
It may just be, Bob, that that scowl was born of his knowledge that you simply hadn't the financial wherewithal to ply him with the kind of gifts that we now know he sees as his due. Paraphrasing Restoration-era British playwright William Congreve, well-placed wealth hath charms to soothe the savage scowl.
Lastly, every time Ginni Thomas is mentioned in the press she is described as a "conservative activist."
She is anything BUT an activist -- she is a PAID political OPERATIVE, who is almost certainly compensated far beyond what her husband earns on the Court and, as with all married couples, their funds are commingled: when Ginni's bread is buttered, Clarence's is in equal measure, and the malfeasences she commits to earn that compensation are his as well.
The SCOTUS has hit rock bottom
The Dishonorable Justice, Clarence Thomas, the longest serving member of the incumbent court, has no ethical integrity! His extremely lavish lifestyle since becoming family friends with Harlan Crow 25 years ago, has drawn much criticism. By the way, Clarence Thomas was elected by the Senate 52 to 48 to the SCOTUS on October 15, 1991, 31 yrs ago, the narrowest margin since 1881. Remember Anita Hill?
How can any function of Government not have a code of ethics? Maybe they should rename them the “Supreme Being Court Of The United States”
And let’s not forget that Ginni has hundreds of thousands in unrecorded income herself. And they both bathe in snobby piety, holier than thou 300 million times over. If Justice Thomas were to be subject to the ethics guidelines that all but 12 judges in America need to abide by he’d have been gone before his first gray hair.
If a Supreme Court Justice has no more grasp of basic judicial ethics than Clarence Thomas exhibits, at least outwardly, then the lack of a code of conduct for the Supreme Court is the least of its problems.
Good point!
Agreed
Unfortunately, this system is what we have. If we're lucky, Thomas might be impeached. But I'm quite sure that's not going to happen. At the same time, my bet is that there are many thugs just like him. We have a system that supposedly found Dr. Anita Hill credible, and yet, Thomas was allowed to ascend to a seat in the highest court. The same system also found Dr. Christine Ford credible, and yet, the beer-loving frat boy was allowed to ascend as well. We may be able to expose and get rid of one or two of these thugs, but that's just a drop in the ocean. Just like we have reached the point of no return with the climate, I think we are at the point of no return with political corruption. Unless we completely overhaul the education system and start teaching reasoning and modern history (not the made-up revisionist ones), we won't have a future.
"Unfortunately, this system is what we have."
Yes, but does this need always to be the case? I think a case can be made for reorienting the Constitution and starting over with a more flexible document. Anyone can see that "the right to bear arms" is really "the right to bear muskets" and that the right to free speech was never intended to apply to corporations. Yet because the Constitution is regarded as lapidary, it is always open to interpretation, and therefore inherently undemocratic.
The fact is, the US has a system of government based on the system of government in London in 1787 (President = King; Senate =House of Lords; House of Representatives = Parliament). Unfortunately, the US system has been cemented in place by the Constitution, whereas in the UK, without a written constitution, the King is now to be found only in the tabloids, and the House of Lords is basically a drinking club.
I definitely agree. But I don't see how we can reorient the system (in a broad sense here) without splitting the population even more. That's why I think we should chalk up what we currently have as a loss and start over. And to build from bottom up, we need people to not repeat the accumulated mistakes we've made. To do that, we need to teach kids how we got here (For God's sake, we have more than half the population thinking that Reagan was the best thing that's happened to this country. And not many realize that we're currently repeating the same mistakes we've made leading up to the Great Depression and the WW2). I just hope kids are smart enough to reason through our mistakes and come out at the other end better than what our generation has done.
On the silk turtle neck that Thomas wore in a recent interview are the monogrammed initials HC - the turtle neck is apparently a gift that Harlan Crow bestows on his friends. But, as my wife pointed out, the monogram may also be seen as a brand - something familiar to any Texan.
Nice catch, if true.
I know Clarence Thomas is and has always been no more than a mediocre judge and was only picked by Bush Senior for the Court as a slap in the face to Black America, but he is bright enough to know what corruption is and that he is participating in it. Then, there's the interview he gave recently where he explains how he likes the "simple life" with vacations in an RV. Lying doesn't seem to be much of a problem for our Justice Thomas!
Because of his position as a Supreme Court Justice, this just might be the most disillusioning moment that has occurred in my 78 yrs of observing politics and human nature. Another reminder that, as my pal, Fred, often says, "If you find yourself to be disillusioned, you shouldn't have allowed yourself to become illusioned in the first place."
“When somebody says it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.” - H.L. Mencken
"Truth is always the enemy of power. And power the enemy of truth." - Edward Abbey
You are so right. It is so sinister to try to justify pure corruption by friendship. Thomas is obviously arrogant and thinks that the rest of us are stupid idiots whom he, his wife and their friends should rule over. Defend the American Republic. Impeach him.
Great piece, Robert, but will anything actually be DONE? I think articles like yours shine a light on the shadows, and thanks for that but it is a bit depressing to think he'll just brazen it out and carry on regardless.
I do not expect Clarence Thomas, the most corrupt judge in American history ,will suffer any adverse consequences stemming from his innate corruption. Democrats seem to timid to impeach him and even if they do, insufficient votes exist in Congress there to convict him Rather his judicial philosophy and decisions will continue to poison American Sociery for years to come.
Dr.R.A. Rosenstein, Chicago, IL
He may be the most corrupt judge we know of. Thanks again ProPublica.
Need to control both houses of Congress to impeach him.
However IMHO he has criminal exposure for perjury.
💯 & we need to keep calling them out. As we keep saying, these 2 parties are not the same.
I wonder if Thomas' scowl at Yale was because he had no more right to be there than he currently does to sit on SCOTUS. Insecure people who know they have gotten something they do not deserve and did not earn can be like that.
This is more prescient than most of us could ever understand.
Imagine for an instance that Clarence Thomas is a product of "affirmative action". I happen to support the idea of affirmative action, but can just as quickly imagine the consequences of "affirmative action" gone wrong, that is, without guard rails.
As I was reading Robert Reich in his excoriating short treatise on Clarence Thomas and his dear, rich friends, I couldn't help hearing a tango in it's cadence, in it's elegant and pointed preciseness, and somehow the deservedly venomous and exacting wit of Jane Austen in her social commentaries. Try it, read it again, and think of a tango and Jane Austen. TOUCHE' could never mean as much.