If you thought you’d heard all of the absurd defenses that can possibly be offered up in the vain attempt to suggest that Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas didn’t do anything unethical when he accepted free trips worth tens of thousands of dollars from a Republican megadonor, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) suggested today that it’s all due to racism on the part of Democrats.
Appearing on “Sunday Futures” with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo, Cruz had this to say:
According to Cruz, some of the liberals on the high court had also accepted trips, but he conveniently neglected to mention any names, probably because he was lying.
Ted Cruz wants us to believe that questioning the ethics of a justice on the Supreme Court is racist. So if the question was about Amy Coney Barrett, would that mean it was sexism? Interesting to see how quickly Republicans play the race card when they have no actual defense for one of their right-wing heroes.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is a step closer to being criminally referred the U.S. Department of Justice for expensive trips and other perks he received from a top Republican donor, some of which were valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Last week, ProPublica revealed the connections between Thomas and billionaire megadonor Harlan Crow.
One of the trips Thomas took was to Indonesia.
IN LATE JUNE 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.
If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn’t necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.
But there were many other jaunts around the globe for Justice Thomas and his wife, Ginni, who worked to try and overturn the results of the 2020 election so that Donald Trump could remain in office despite having lost in a landslide to President Joe Biden.
The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has written a committee of federal judges who oversee matters related to members of the judiciary and is requesting a formal criminal referral of Thomas to the Justice Department, noting:
Campaign Legal Center respectfully requests that the Judicial Conference exercise its authority pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 13106(b) and refer Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Attorney General because there is “reasonable cause to believe” that he “willfully failed to file information required to be reported” under the Ethics in GovernmentAct (“EIGA”).
Specifically, Justice Thomas’ public statement on April 7, 2023, and recent news reporting, confirm that for over twenty years he did not file required gift disclosures of private plane and yacht travel from one individual. There is reasonable cause to believe that the omissions were willful because Justice Thomas (1) previously reported private plane travel from the same individual in compliance with the law, but stopped the disclosures after negative media attention; and (2) has a history of omitting significant information from his financial disclosure reports.
Thomas has served on the Supreme Court since 1991.
On Thursday, ProPublica released an explosive report on the free trips Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted over the past 20 years from a billionaire Republican megadonor Harlan Crow.
IN LATE JUNE 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.
If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn’t necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.
For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.
Asked about the numerous free trips, Thomas issued a public statement which reads, “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 do not have business before the court was not reportable. I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines.”
However, other judges on the federal bench say it’s no wonder respect for the Supreme Court is at an all-time low, with CNN’s Ariane de Vogue reporting Friday on “The Lead” that many of the judges she spoke with were angry at Thomas.
“I did talk to other judges who actually sided with them,” de Vogue added. “They’re like, these rules then were vague and he was following the rules. And I pressed and I said, yeah, but here we’re talking about luxury trips, right, private jets, yachts, not like the fancy car on Uber or something, really important ones. And he said, look they were the rules, he followed the rules. But it’s opened up a firestorm, and maybe now a lot of judges are wondering, with this fresh look at at their ethics disclosures, if that’s going to start a whole new story. The Court still does not have an official code of conduct, though, right and that is really that’s the next big story.”
Thomas is 74 years old and has long been a cancer on the high court. It’s time he resigned and made room for a justice who wouldn’t have the same stench of compromised integrity clinging to them.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas got reminded of his own absurd judicial philosophy during oral arguments on a case dealing with federal and state election rules.
The North Carolina GOP legislature … argues that state constitutions and state courts have little or no authority to impose limits on how state legislatures craft their rules for federal elections.
The controversial “independent state legislature” theory is being used by Republican lawmakers to argue that state courts could not redraw the congressional map the legislature sought to enact in 2021.
A version of theory was promoted by allies of former President Donald Trump during their attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Arguing on behalf of Common Cause in opposition to the North Carolina legislature was former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who noted that the high court had once ruled “states rights” on the issue of abortion and then said such a standard didn’t apply to regulations on guns.
Thomas tried to argue against Katyal:
Katyal replied:
That led Thomas to inquire:
“Let me ask you this. It may be a bit unfair. If the state legislature had been very, very generous to minority voters in their redistricting and the state supreme court said under their state constitution that this was — it violated their own state Constitution of North Carolina, would you be making the same argument?”
Katyal:
Later, Katyal again used Thomas’ own flawed reasoning to prove that conservatives on the high court talk out of both sides of their mouths:
“The North Carolina court is interpreting the elections clauses and powers and the question is whether or not they have misread it or not and so I think that’s the source of the substantive — alleged substantive violation here. The spirit of your question, for 233 years, this court’s never gotten involved and said, hey, we’re going to, you know, say the North Carolina court got it wrong or their provision was too abstract for enforcement or anything like that. Rather, this court has always stayed on the sidelines, let the state process unfold subject to that other part of the trident check, Congress, in the second half of the elections cause.”
If the six conservative justices rule in favor of North Carolina, it will be the end of free and fair elections in the United States. Each state will be able to set their own election standards and disenfranchise anyone they want. They’ll even be able to overrule the will of the voters and choose the winners and losers in each election based solely on political party.
Clarence Thomas’ bullshit is finally starting to catch up with him.
Actor Samuel L. Jackson has had quite enough of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and he’s making it clear that Thomas has jeopardized his own interracial marriage with his ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade.
HuffPost reports that Jackson vented his feelings on Twitter:
The same rationale the conservative court employed to reverse the 1973 decision on abortion rights could now be used to eliminate the right to same-sex marriage, contraception and interracial marriage, which was protected in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling, lawmakers and scholars fear.
Jackson bashed Thomas as “Uncle Clarence” in a Friday night tweet, referring to the excessively servile Black character in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s pre-Civil War novel “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”
Loving v. Virginia was also based on the right of privacy, but conservatives on the high court have now decided that none of us have any privacy since that right isn’t specifically laid out in regard to abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, or even interracial marriage:
In a solo concurring opinion Friday, Thomas suggested that the court should “correct the error” by withdrawing granted rights now protected under the “substantive due process clause” of the 14th Amendment.
Thomas, however, didn’t bother to mention marriage between adults of different races, probably because he’s married to a white woman and overturning Loving would make his marriage null and void, as many others pointed out as they discussed the blatant hypocrisy in what Thomas wrote in his opinion to overturn Roe, which has stood for nearly 50 years:
Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff behind the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on same-sex marriage, said Friday that Thomas omitted Loving v. Virginia on his list of top court decisions to “reconsider” because it “affects him personally.”
That “affects him personally, but he doesn’t care about the LGBTQ+ community,” Obergefell said on MSNBC’s “The Reid Out.”
Jackson got plenty of support from others on Twitter, too: