I agree with the editors of the Washington Post in this:
Justice Thomas should immediately review all his financial disclosure reports, amend them with the newly revealed transactions and add any information he has not reported. The Judicial Conference of the United States, which oversees the federal judiciary, should press him to do so if he fails to complete the reports on his own.
but I am less certain about this:
The conference should then examine Justice Thomas’s conduct and determine whether his repeated nondisclosure merits a referral to the Justice Department.
Justice Thomas’s lapses undermine public trust in the court. They also reflect a disturbing indifference to official rules that is unacceptable for a justice, or any public servant.
Does the Department of Justice actually have that authority?
The precedent that people are thinking of is undoubtedly Abe Fortas. However, Justice Fortas resigned after accepting a payment from a financier who was under investigation. Is the parallel actually that strong? Furthermore, just as in 1969 the political considerations are front and center. Appointing an associate justice to replace Justice Thomas would provide President Biden with the opportunity to move the court from its present trajectory. Inducing Justice Thomas to resign (or impeaching him), appointing someone to replace him, and getting that individual confirmed would be quite a feat.
There is impeachment and there is impeachment.
The Judicial Conference of the United States is a policy-making body that meets twice a year to make recommendations to Congress about legislation involving the Judicial Branch. The Chief Justice presides. Looks like they might meet again in five months.
There are disciplinary proceedings, but they don’t cover Supreme Court Justices, and if removal may be appropriate, a report is sent to the House of Representatives.
If WaPo isn’t making a case for impeachment, they are just banging tin cans and hub caps.
Thomas has been a principled ideologue on the issues since he joined the court. He is also only one vote of nine. The possibility of him having much individual influence of note is close to nil. That his wife is conservative, and at least a wee bit in the weeds, seems immaterial to anybody that counts votes. The median justice is what matters, and Thomas has really never been a median justice.
Meanwhile in Illinois, the longest-serving leader of any state or federal legislative body in the history of the United States is being tried indirectly for taking bribes. His defenders say Madigan is just one vote of many, he can’t direct the course of legislation. How the legislature and judiciary work are entirely different. Madigan doesn’t write an opinion, he inserts language in the bills and everybody later professes they don’t know how it got there.
He should not be on the court, period. No justice at any level who accepts that much money, even if in kind, should remain a judge. If he wont resign impeachment is what should happen. There is zero chance he can be impeached so nothing will happen and SCOTUS justices will continue to accept very expensive gifts.
On the plus side, I have not been able to accept so much as a pen as a gift from a drug rep or a vendor. Now all I have to do is say they are a friend and its OK if they pay for expensive trips or buy me real estate. I promise, wink-wink, not to talk about medicine in any way with any of the drug reps or vendors invited on the trips.
Steve
They are picking on Thomas, but the big prize is the Biden family. Do they have the balls for that?
PS. Impeachment starts in the House. Does anyone the the Republican House will impeach Thomas?
That was the point I was making.
First, I wish the media would link Thomas statement in his own defense. From reading paraphrase’s, Thomas is saying (a) the rules weren’t previously clear he had to disclose, and he was advised he didn’t (i.e. the common law argument that the rules didn’t apply) (b) the rules were changed in March and he will follow them (c) Thomas never discussed cases and no cases involving any of his friends or the organizations that they belong to were present in the court.
From a certain point of view, ProPublica is implying Thomas pushed the line on an ethics process (disclosure) to cover up a non-existent ethics violation (nevermind a legal violation); reminds me of another legal controversy….
The subtext of all of this is raw politics and history. Clarence Thomas will be in the ground before he permits the Senator who conducted the nomination hearings where Thomas proclaimed
to nominate his replacement. One doesn’t say that in front of the country unless they believe it.
I also don’t get the strategy “progressives” are pursuing with respect to the court; my view is summarized by “one catches more flies with honey than vinegar”.
For 30 years, Conservatives despaired after Blackmun, Souter, O’Connor, Kennedy totally or partially drifted towards “liberal” jurisprudence positions; all of them lionized by the press for their “growth”. My own view is Kavanaugh by inclination is open to similar tendencies — but his nomination hearings and rejection of the open hand in ALABAMA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES has stopped those tendencies for the foreseeable future. Which is critical because in Dobbs, Kavanaugh was likely the 5th vote and the decision was much stronger for Dobbs because of it.
If the media keeps trying to pressure / ostracize / shame the conservative justices without removing said justices; a possibility is a real reworking of 1st amendment jurispudence. Do journalists realize how much of their legal protections are inventions of the supreme court, and specifically the Warren Court? Already, three justices on the current court may have a jaundiced eye to the correctness of those decisions, do they really want to find out if it gets to 4 or 5?
” the rules weren’t previously clear he had to disclose, and he was advised he didn’t”
Total BS. In what world does any reasonable person not know that you need to disclose that you are receiving hundreds of thousands dollars outside of normal income when you are paid civil servant? Where there is a chance of influence? This has pretty much always been true. It may also be true that SCOTUS justices have always flaunted this but it is still the case they know that everyone else in the country needs to report these kinds of gifts.
BS again. As noted above, would it really be believable if I accepted a $50k trip from a vendor and he also went on that trip along with a bunch of other salespeople and I claimed we never talked their product or the issues around the product or not even listened to them tell me why other companies had faulty products?
Suppose you could sell access to Supreme Court judges. Real private time without witnesses. What do you think people would be willing to pay? Willing to take their word they wouldn’t talk about anything remotely related to any pending or possible pending cases? What is it about a Supreme Court justice that makes you think they and their friends (friend meaning someone who gives them money so they hang around together) are uniquely above reproach.
Finally, they have asked Thomas and they have reported his answers. He keep saying he was told he didnt need to report or didnt know. In the case of his real estate and his wife’s real estate he said he didnt know how to fill out the forms. He is an offing lawyer surrounded by other lawyers. He seriously didnt know how to fill out a legal form? That’s one of the things you hire lawyers to do! He has ben living the high life and he got caught. His excuses are lame.
Steve
Your own quote basically validates Thomas’s own argument.
“It may also be true that SCOTUS justices have always flaunted this but it is still the case they know that everyone else in the country needs to report these kinds of gifts”
Since the disclosure rules changed to be clear on this area just last month, it implies the previous rules weren’t clear or applicable. Indeed the CNN article
(https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/07/politics/clarence-thomas-disclosures-supreme-court/index.html) has multiple judges unhappy with and defending Thomas with regards to disclosure.
As to the underlying conduct, if it is acknowledged Supreme Court justices have been indulging in “it” for years and decades from “organizations and corporations” requiring disclosure, and reporting it means they weren’t improperly influenced. Now that Propublica has disclosed for Thomas — but didn’t accuse Thomas of being improperly influenced (and I think they searched hard), Thomas probably is in the same bucket as all the other supreme court justices as to whether he was influenced.
That’s not to say the Supreme Court justices shouldn’t change their behavior. If they acted and were treated less like celebrities it would be good for the country. But it requires the media to stop characterizing judges as “heros” or “villains”.
“As noted above, would it really be believable if I accepted a $50k trip from a vendor…”
Good point, steve. We already you don’t need to take a crass bribe to make up diagnoses to keep your billing rates up; you will do it proactively. You moral high grounder, you.
Thomas is Black.
Forget that Steve?
Really want to go down that road?
The point remains that even if the SCOTUS did not have clear rules it is not believable that anyone believes there was never any talk about stuff that might have influenced Thomas and no public employee doesnt know even if rules are unclear that it is unethical to accept large gifts of that kind at the very least and probably illegal.
Jefferson (money in freezer), Wilkerson (money in bra) and several other politicians have been convicted of corruption and bribery in recent times, all for less money than Thomas has received.
Steve
“it is not believable that anyone believes there was never any talk about stuff that might have influenced Thomas” — Please be more specific as to where the issue is.
Judges are human, interactions with other humans influence us in ways large or small every day. Talking to a friend influences us, reading an editorial influences us, coaching the kids soccer team influences us; it is not possible for a judge to be human and not be influenced by the people interact with.
In this case, whether it is plausible Thomas says he didn’t discuss any of cases with his friends, its pretty plausible since not discussing cases before one’s court is a pretty core tenet to being a judge. Again, its not like Thomas is unique — this article in 2019 showed all Supreme Court justices were taking pretty nice “gratis” trips (https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/06/scotus-justices-rack-up-trips/)
Now those trips were all disclosed because the rules said hospitality paid by organizations had to be reported. But nonetheless, all the same concerns about “influence” apply but nobody is accusing the other supreme court justices of impropriety like they are with Thomas…
The final paragraph is just gross — no one has accused Thomas of taking actual money in exchange for rulings. So why impugn him by association? That quote by Thomas from his nomination hearings comes to mind.
Seriously?! People here are defending Thomas accepting huge gifts from billionaires who are active in the right-wing political movement. Who became “dear friends” only after Thomas became a Supreme Court justice. Who made donations to right-wing organizations that employ Thomas’ wife, income Thomas failed to report, along other gifts and transactions Thomas didn’t report as required.
Not me. I don’t think that Supreme Court justices or members of Congress should be allowed to accept gifts including in kind of any sort from anybody and the laws should be written accordingly..
Seriously.
“income Thomas failed to report, along other gifts and transactions Thomas didn’t report as required.” — this whole part has been disputed; an example from the WSJ.
One has credibility on this if one has been condemning the practice of supreme court justices accepting free trips, writing books for a whole generation or more (which some have but probably not most who are complaining). Otherwise, it comes across as hypocritical.
I have consistently opposed judges accepting these large gifts. I have also consistently opposed judges having spouses who are actively engaged in politics. Its not believable that they are not influenced.
“The final paragraph is just gross — no one has accused Thomas of taking actual money in exchange for rulings.”
He has been secretly accepting huge gifts from people who have major interests in issues that go in front of the court. He is being paid, secretly, to vacation with people who organize the legal strategies for cases brought to the court. Its pretty clear that those people thought the money well spent.
So it would be best if they did take such trips they paid for them themselves. There would be less concerns about quid pro quo. Second best is that it is at least reported. No public official in the country would not be aware that accepting such large gifts looks corrupt and should be reported. In my world, where we worry more about influence we would not be allowed to accept such trips even if we did report them.
Steve
CuriousOnlooker: this whole part has been disputed; an example from the WSJ.
Behind a paywall.
He reported carefully on his inherited real estate.
He just happened to sell to a billionaire. He didn’t bother to report the transaction. We know this because Thomas is currently revising his disclosure to reflect the transaction.
CuriousOnlooker: writing books
Writing books is a legitimate enterprise, even though it can be corrupted by bulk buying in secret by partisans. Regardless, it is reportable income.
steve: He has been secretly accepting huge gifts from people who have major interests in issues that go in front of the court.
Nice Work If You Can Get It