Judge That Received Millions In Unreported Gifts Over Two Decades Had The Gall To Sit On A Bribery Case - Above the Law

Clarence Thomas is known for many things. A long career of not speaking at the bench, a wife that is regularly associated with a failed coup and, as of yesterday, twenty years of what appear to be flagrant violations of a federal law that would require him to report gifts valued at more than $415. The law makes sense in a post-Watergate world — the public interest is served by people in positions of authority being transparent. Wouldn’t want them to be bribed or anything. Or, in the case of judges, you wouldn’t want potentially bribed judges sitting on bribery cases. Which Justice Thomas did, of course.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas voted in a unanimous Supreme Court decision to overturn a bribery conviction against a former Virginia governor in 2016 while allegedly accepting luxurious vacations from a top Republican donor at the same time. Thomas has faced increasing scrutiny recently after news broke regarding Thomas’ wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas advocating for overturning the 2020 election results. The public has since called for his resignation, and in September, SCOTUS received its lowest approval rating among Americans according to a Gallup poll. An April 6 report by the investigative journalism organization ProPublica alleging that Thomas had accepted extravagant trips with Republican donor Harlan Crow has intensified the scrutiny, with many ethics experts now questioning if Thomas acted poorly by accepting the gifts and neglecting to disclose them.

Let’s be frank here. I don’t think that the issue is that he ruled on the case — it was a 9-0 outcome after all. What would be the argument there, that all of the judges are at fault because they too take unreported totally-not-bribes? While I assume that’s not the case, here is a totally unrelated tweet:

I keep seeing strange takes from lawyers suggesting caution before condemning Clarence Thomas and, well, look, if my girl Sonia is also secretly living up the high life in the offseason on a billionaire's dime then impeach her too. But she isn't. He is and he isn't even sorry. — Max Kennerly (@MaxKennerly) April 6, 2023

Now that that’s out the way, the problem is that the verdict isn’t 8-0. That’s the thing about recusals. They’re supposed to be like buzzed driving. The question isn’t if your judgement is impaired or not. The issue is realizing that if there is a space of ambiguity about your capacity to make decisions, that space as such is justification enough to remove yourself from the equation. And if he, or any other purportedly neutral agent doesn’t have the heart to call the Uber, his keys should be taken from him. Just ask Neama Rahmani:

“If Thomas has a potential conflict of interest yet refuses to recuse himself, or if he doesn’t make the appropriate financial disclosures, there is no mechanism to disqualify him,” Rahmani said. “It’s up to Congress to act, which is unlikely given the current makeup of the House.”

Earlier: Paragon Of Virtue Clarence Thomas Has Been Given Millions Of Dollars In Value Off The Record And It Totally Hasn’t Impacted His Judging. Not One Bit. Nope.

Clarence Thomas Ruled on Bribery Case While Accepting Vacations [Newsweek]

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s. He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at [email protected] and by tweet at @WritesForRent.