The justice’s endeavor
Clarence Thomas says he followed the rules to the letter.
In a statement released by the Supreme Court, the justice said that he had followed guidance from others at the court and that he believed he was not required to report the trips.
“Early in my tenure at the court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the court, was not reportable,” Justice Thomas said. “I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines.”
No. That’s not credible. If you’re a Supreme Court justice and you just happen to have these billionaire Close Personal Friends who became your “friends” after you were appointed to the court, you know damn well that that’s an issue. Justices aren’t just random people off the street appointed to the court in a lottery. They’re supposed to know something about the law, and about the norms and expectations that govern people with extra power in relation to that law. He wasn’t some hayseed learning how to work the Xerox machine, he was A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. Come on now.
And another thing. There’s a tacky bit of attempted manipulation in there.
…and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the court, was not reportable,” Justice Thomas said. “I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure”
See what he did there? He says he made a strenuous effort to follow the counsel to keep the bribes secret – in other words he claims to have worked hard to do nothing about the bribes, so that we would admire his diligence and effort. It didn’t take any “endeavor” for him to fail to report the bribes; all he had to do was just not report the bribes, which was of course the easiest and pleasantest path to take. Tawdry as well as corrupt.
A supreme court justice claiming ignorance of the law, now that’s a good one.
Well it’s not the law in the sense of what the Supreme Court interprets for us.
Let’s hope not, but “personal hospitality” of this type seldom comes without it’s expectations of reciprocity.
I mean whether these “friends” had “business before the court” or not.
No of course not, I’m just saying Thomas’s claim to be clueless about the ethics rules isn’t Thomas claiming to be ignorant of the law.
Aren’t there laws against such things? I did find this >> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201
Whether it applies or not I don’t know.
There are – see the Pro Publica follow-up article I just linked to. I was wrong, you were right.
Thanks, I was wondering. I think you’re right about what he was addressing, but I felt like he was trying to distract from the real issue, that being the deeper legal implications.
I hope he’s feeling as uncomfortable as a Supreme Court justice lying on an ant hill.