[ad_1]
Clarence Thomas, the most senior member of the Supreme Court and its most glaring embarrassment, probably has Chief Justice Roberts hunched over and hyperventilating into a paper bag right now. Because after yet another ProPublica release, it’s not just Clarence’s legacy that will end tarnished — especially when Roberts being asleep at the ethical wheel allowed for it to get this bad. From ProPublica:
Thomas has attended Koch donor events at least twice over the years, according to interviews with three former network employees and one major donor. The justice was brought in to speak, staffers said, in the hopes that such access would encourage donors to continue giving.
That puts Thomas in the extraordinary position of having served as a fundraising draw for a network that has brought cases before the Supreme Court, including one of the most closely watched of the upcoming term.
Thomas never reported the 2018 flight to Palm Springs on his annual financial disclosure form, an apparent violation of federal law requiring justices to report most gifts. A Koch network spokesperson said the network did not pay for the private jet. Since Thomas didn’t disclose it, it’s not clear who did pay.
In all honesty, Thomas may have paid for both flights. But considering he hasn’t been paying for his private jets postDobbs or that fake-ass everyman RV he got gifted, I’d be shocked if he pays for his own lunches. After rubbing shoulders with all these self-made-men types, you’d think Clarence would be tired of taking handouts for this long.
One of Clarence’s earlier defenses to being paid under the table by Harlan Crow was that the money received was not connected to any matters before the court. Which was a lie. And going by just the odds alone, Clarence must have had matters before him that were funded at least in part by either Charles or David Koch. There’s also no need to go off of speculation alone: Koch money was behind Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta and the upcoming Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Is there a chance Thomas will recuse himself for that case? Sure but, much like his spending habits, he doesn’t have a stellar track record of doing the right thing.
You may not be familiar with the Koch Brothers. You should be. They’ve spent dozens of millions funding political candidates between 2020-2022 alone and they’ve been doing their King Midas impersonations before people who say the things they like for decades. They planned to spend over $890M dollars for the 2016 election. Here’s a short intro to some of the values they were passionate enough to drop dollar on.
And while it would be nice to believe that no one in their right mind actually believes in deregulation to the point of gutting the very basic social nets that keep many Americans alive, you know who’s gone out of their way to write opinions that might as well parrot Koch talking points?
Clarence Thomas. For example, here’s him arguing for cutting back federal authority to such a degree that we’d no longer be able to enforce child labor laws. His wacky concurrence was joined only by Justice Alito, who has also been mired in his share of ethical quandaries. Don’t be surprised if it comes out that Alito was at one of these kickbacks too — the brothers have been known to donate to Catholic causes.
The nature of Thomas’s relationship with these mega donors isn’t some natural consequence of his high position on the Court. He is a particularly egregious violator. One of his coworkers refused bagels from a high-school friend to avoid appearing impartial. If taking bagels would have been a cause for alarm, Thomas’s record is 30 seconds to midnight. No question about it, what he’s doing is against the code of conduct ProPublica lays out:
The code of conduct for the federal judiciary lays out rules designed to preserve judges’ impartiality and independence, which it calls “indispensable to justice in our society.” The code specifically prohibits both political activity and participation in fundraising. Judges are advised, for instance, not to “associate themselves” with any group “publicly identified with controversial legal, social, or political positions.”
Well, at least it would be, if the Supreme Court had one. Instead, what we have is Chief Justice Roberts making scout’s honor pledges about how the members of his Court will do better — which doesn’t work — and Justice Alito raspberrying the general public that the Constitutional prevents Congress from regulating the Supreme Court.
What then can be done under these circumstances? Fix The Court had this to say:
“The law is very clear. The Judicial Conference must refer to the Attorney General ‘any individual’ for which there is ‘reasonable cause to believe’ that ‘information required to be reported’ in their disclosure has not been reported. We’re far past ‘reasonable cause’ territory.
“The Conference’s Committee on Financial Disclosure appears complicit in Thomas’ defiance of federal law. It has sat on information about his disclosure omissions for five months — remember, a private plane is not a ‘facility’ exempt from reporting — even as more damning details come out.
“It should not delay any longer in informing the Conference there’s reason to believe Thomas has for years been willfully hiding his reportable gifts and trips.
“But that’s not where the process would end. Once the Conference refers this information to the Attorney General Garland, Garland should appoint a special counsel to investigate and corroborate the number of times Thomas has failed his disclosure obligations. Then Thomas should be fined for each of those omissions, as is allowed under the law.”
The good news about this route? It doesn’t trip any of the boohoo-ing about the separation of powers Roberts and Alito are using to excuse their lack of responsibility. While it would be off limits to dip into Thomas’s paycheck directly, the Constitution wouldn’t insulate him from tort actions having that effect. And if he gets hit for each time there’s been a violation… there are at least 25 years’ worth of violations.
[ad_2]
