Oh Look! Another Clarence Thomas Ethics Scandal! - Above the Law

Authored by abovethelaw.com and submitted by ladyem8
image for Oh Look! Another Clarence Thomas Ethics Scandal! - Above the Law

Clarence and Ginni Thomas are a veritable conservative power couple. He’s a Supreme Court justice boldly re-writing established precedent to shape the country to his proclivities. She’s a far-right operative that has her hands in the pots of all the hot-button issues. And that’s caused some problems for Clarence, what with justices and the appearance of impropriety and all that.

Like we know Ginni was working harder than Kris Jenner after Donald Trump lost the 2020 election — the January 6th committee even wants to talk to her about it. But despite her involvement, Clarence Thomas went on to hear a case about the January 6th committee — and shockingly! — he was the lone dissent when the Court rejected Trump’s efforts to block the release of presidential records to the committee. Hmmm… sus.

Sponsored 6 Creative Ways Legal Document Automation Drives Greater Efficiences Because so much of legal work begins and ends with documents, the best way to immediately benefit from workflow automation is through legal document automation.

But despite the repeated calls for recusals or resignation, well, the Supreme Court doesn’t actually *have* an ethical code they’re bound to, so… shrug emoji.

Don’t worry, there’s another ethical lapse making news.

As reported by the Los Angeles Times:

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation’s IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled “none” where “spousal noninvestment income” would be disclosed.

Sponsored Dinners With Ruth Celebrated NPR correspondent Nina Totenberg delivers an extraordinary memoir of her personal successes, struggles, and life-affirming relationships, including her beautiful friendship of nearly fifty years…

Ginni was also active in Liberty Central in 2009, and Common Cause believes she was paid an unknown salary that year. …And Clarence Thomas also recorded spousal income that year as “none.”

Stephen Gillers, a professor at NYU School of Law, took a harsh view of the omission, saying, “It wasn’t a miscalculation; he simply omitted his wife’s source of income for six years, which is a rather dramatic omission. It could not have been an oversight.” But, again, without any ethics code for the Supreme Court, and with less than 60 Democratic senators, all that amounts to a hill of beans.

While it’s never a *good* time for a scandal, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is in the toilet. And this kind of ethical lapse reinforces all of the negative connotations the public has about the Court.

was_and_wasnt on September 28th, 2022 at 13:37 UTC »

We trust this very limited set of Justices with how our nation defines itself and the mechanics used to make it work. There can be no areas of contest to the ethics of these justices. Thomas now has 2 such areas. Are we going to let our SC judges devolve into what a standard republican politician represents?

newnemo on September 28th, 2022 at 13:28 UTC »

It is long past due for Judicial reform, from the top down. One way to start is for congress to impeach Thomas not only for his own ethical scandals but those of his right wing operative wife.

Justice should be apolitical, blind and thoughtful. Instead we have an activist right wing court hell bent on turning the clock back to the Gilded Age. Their legitimacy is rightfully forfeited as a result.

ladyem8 on September 28th, 2022 at 13:13 UTC »

“Between 2003 and 2007 Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $689,589 from the Heritage Foundation according to a Common Cause review of the foundation’s IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled “none” where spousal noninvestment income would be disclosed.”