As a matter of jurisprudence, the Supreme Court judge Clarence Thomas have reasons to be satisfied. After Donald Trump and Senate Republicans added three new, more conservative members to the high court, the right now dominates the institution in a way not seen in generations. The result was a predictable series of reactionary actions, far-right decisionsincluding the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Wade.
And yet, while Thomas is probably pleased with the direction of the judiciary, he is apparently much less happy with the ethics charges he has faced. The Associated Press reported:
When the far-right jurist was asked specifically about a world that seems mean-spirited, Thomas responded, “I think there are challenges with that. We’re in a world and we — certainly my wife and I in the last two or three years — just the evil and the lies, it’s just incredible.”
A New York Times report of the judge’s comments noted: “This represented some of the most extensive public comments he has made since the revelations that he failed to disclose years of lavish travel by wealthy conservatives such as Texas real estate mogul Harlan Crow, including on private jets and a superyacht.”
Circling back to our previous coverage, Thomas has faced difficult ethical questions for many years, but his difficulties took a more serious turn last spring. ProPublica published a pretty devastating report in early April last year, highlighting the generous, undisclosed benefits Thomas received from a Republican mega-donor.
In the weeks and months that followed, ProPublica took over the lead about exposing Tomás’s other unusual ties to his rich friend, but the way out was not alone. Time too took the story furthershedding light on previously unstated benefits the justice received from a “group of wealthy and powerful friends” thanks to his connections established through the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans.
The Times added new reports in August, one of Thomas’ other wealthy friends provided the sitting judge with undisclosed financing that enabled Thomas to purchase an expensive recreational vehicle. What was the loan amount? Neither the judge nor his friend say. How much did Thomas pay? They wouldn’t say. What were the terms of the loan? They wouldn’t say. Was there a formal loan agreement? They wouldn’t say.
ProPublica will soon be published another report This made the entire controversy seem considerably worse, noting that Thomas had been assigned “at least 38 vacation destinations, including a previously unreported trip on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus eight additional helicopter flights; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, usually in the box; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and a standing invitation to a super-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.”
In each case, the far-right jurist’s lavish benefits “were underwritten by benefactors who share the ideology that drives his jurisprudence.” While the precise value of the trips is difficult to measure, ProPublica described it as “likely in the millions” of dollars.
It’s a dynamic that’s impossible to defend: Thomas lived the life of a rich man, thanks to the generosity of his wealthy, like-minded friends.
Like my MSNBC colleague Zeeshan Aleem explained, “There is nothing partisan about calling this what it is: a brazen and shameful abuse of power that undermines the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. The fact that Thomas received these gifts is quite alarming. The fact that he allegedly took them without revealing that he had taken them (with rare exceptions) makes it hard to believe that Thomas doesn’t realize how bad this all seems.”
At the beginning of this year, it came to the point where Thomas became a joke to jokes about Supreme Court corruption. (In February, The Onion, a satirical outlet, published a memorable item with a headline that read: “Clarence Thomas announces 50% discount on all favorable decisions.”)
As all this unfolded, the justice system said nothing, relying instead on political allies who sold woefully unconvincing defenses.
But late last week, Thomas finally spoke out — to say he faced “lies.”
I’m afraid he will have to be more specific. Specifically, which of the scandals should the public disregard?
Because, on the one hand, we have a lot of attractive, well-founded resources, awarded reports written and published by respected journalists. On the other hand, we have a controversial Supreme Court justice, burdened by decades of controversy, who apparently expects the public to take his vague claims at face value, despite his lack of credibility.
This doesn’t seem like an especially difficult decision.
This post updates our related previous coverage.
This article was originally published in MSNBC.com
