Watch Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse call out Clarence Thomas' lack of ethics
Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee spent Tuesday developing their argument for a bill that would establish an ethics code for the Supreme Court, since the justices have proved unwilling to police themselves.
Conservatives (and wishy washy centrists) are trying to argue
that Congress would be overstepping its powers by prescribing a way for
justices to be held accountable for ethical violations.
This all comes in the wake of revelation after revelation surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and his
very lucrative relationship with billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow. Thomas’
seeming lack of ethics has been exposed alongside the Supreme Court’s inability
to implement any ethical standards.
One of the bills proposed by Democratic lawmakers seeks to create a “process for investigating misconduct at the Supreme Court, strengthen recusal standards for judges and disclosure rules for special interests trying to influence the courts, improve disclosure of travel and hospitality for judges, and mandate the creation of a binding code of ethics.”
Rhode Island
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is one of the bill’s authors and gave a beautifully
synthesized breakdown of how absurd Thomas’ position is.
Whitehouse argued in support of his proposed legislation to create a code of ethics for the court, while highlighting more than a decade of failed oversight where Clarence Thomas is concerned.
But Whitehouse was smart to begin with the most egregious elephant in the room: Thomas’ refusal to recuse himself from the first Jan. 6 committee case.
The most important
question around that situation was never even pursued: When did Justice Thomas
become aware of his wife Ginny’s “insurrection activities”? Whitehouse calls it
“a coverup in plain view” and says that “the Supreme Court, alone among federal
courts, is okay with that.”
Whitehouse proceeds to break down how bogus Thomas’
claims are:
First problem: Private jet travel is not in the personal hospitality exemption, which is limited to food, lodging, and entertainment. Exhibit seven. Some textualist, by the way.
Second problem: Thomas said it was okay because he'd asked colleagues, but
that financial disclosure committee, it's there to ask about financial
disclosure. Setting aside that its name should give a clue, Thomas knew the
committee existed because concerns about his yacht and jet travel gifts from
this billionaire were referred there in 2011.
After some of these gifts were first revealed in this New York Times story, exhibit nine.
Third problem: There's no legal way not to disclose the property acquisition in Georgia.
Fourth problem: Some of this personal hospitality involves people
dedicated to turning the court into a tool for right-wing billionaires, namely
Leonard Leo. This guy doesn't have business before the court. His business is
the court.
This disclosure mess has again been referred to the Financial Disclosure Committee, which raises the question of the previous referral to that same committee of the same billionaire’s gifts to Thomas of yacht and jet travel.
The rules seem to require the committee to report its
findings to the judicial conference. The records of the judicial conference are
public, and the records of the judicial conference contain no mention of any
such report.
So what became of the 2011 referral? Did anyone
intervene? Is the committee still considering the 2011 referral more than a
decade later? There is much yet to learn, which is why last week I sent a
letter to the courts asking for further answers. Exhibit 10. Three things are
needed to fix all this: better enforcement, better recusal rules, and better
disclosures. My bill would do all three.
The sad thing is that as more stories come out, the only
distinguishing characteristic that Thomas seems to have in comparison with his
fellow conservative judges is that he’s been there the longest.
RELATED STORIES:
The Clarence Thomas scandal keeps growing
The rot in the
Supreme Court goes beyond Clarence and Ginni Thomas
The next chapter
in the Thomas-Crow Affair: Shady real estate deals putting money in Thomas'
pocket
Justice Clarence
Thomas has reported up to $750,000 in income from a company that doesn't exist
Rep. Hakeem
Jeffries goes in on Clarence Thomas and it gets serious fast
