Month: April 2023

Comment Of The Day: “The Complete List Of Rationalizations To Excuse Justice Thomas’ Gross Betrayal Of Judicial Ethics, And Other Updates (Part II)”

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

I briefly considered slapping my name on this terrific comment by Extradimensional Cephalopod and posting it, but as Richard Nixon memorably said, “That would be wrong.” Here is his Comment of the Day on the post, “The Complete List Of Rationalizations To Excuse Justice Thomas’ Gross Betrayal Of Judicial Ethics, And Other Updates (Part II)”:

***

Stipulated: In theory, the ethical course of action is for Justice Thomas to resign, because the institution of the Supreme Court functions based on the assumption that the justices are not corrupt, i.e. they do not accept incentives to influence their decisions. Anything that introduces serious doubt about that assumption damages trust in the court’s integrity, and is unethical.

Ethics does not exist as a set of arbitrary rules. The purpose of ethics is that it puts a society in a better position in the future. For Justice Thomas to resign would demonstrate a measure of good faith on his part (albeit diminished by having gone on the trips in the first place). It makes a statement that conservative justices value trust in the Supreme Court as an institution more than they value a political advantage. It indicates they will respect progressive justices for stepping down in a similar situation, that they would not press a political advantage which might incentivize progressive justices not to do so.

The reason that some people feel it is more desirable for Justice Thomas to remain on the court is because it seems like a critical short-term measure, a stopgap. If the point of ethics is to build the trust that allows society to function at its best, it seems to them that starting with this situation would build very little trust at the cost of sacrificing political power* to people who are perceived as destructive and unreasonable. If you apply ethics as you would in an ethical society, and it has a heavy short-term cost because of unethical actors, you had better be sure your sacrifice is helping set up some long-term change towards a more ethical society, or it’s a pointless gesture.

Continue reading →

A”What’s Going On Here?” Special: Bud Light’s Promotion of Dylan Mulvaney

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

TikTok star Dylan Mulvaney, a self-promoting trans-girl who for some reason is an internet “influencer,” posted a video last week promoting the brand’s Easy Carry Contest, in which participants must demonstrate how many cans Budweiser’s worst brew they can carry to win $15,000. Bud Light had sent Mulvaney a  commemorative can featuring an illustration of the Ex-Man’s face with a message congratulating her on “365 days of girlhood.”

Then all hell broke loose. Conservatives are calling for a boycott of Bud Light. Kid Rock posted a video of himself wearing a MAGA baseball cap, shooting up a case of Bud Light and saying, “Fuck Bud Light, and fuck Anheuser-Busch!”

“What’s going on here?”

Continue reading →

The Sandy Hook Ethics Train Wreck Jumps The Rails In Tennessee

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

It’s understandable that people of good will lose their minds, perspective and good judgment over the emotion-packed problem of school shootings, but someone has to stay rational and ethical. It might as well be me.

There are three major public affairs sagas currently occupying the media’s efforts and the public’s mayfly-like attention: Donald Trump’s indictment, Clarence Thomas’s betrayal of his sacred obligation as a Supreme Court justice, and the messy aftermath of the latest school shooting, this one by a transsexual with a history of mental health issues. The first is the culmination of one of our most long and continually-running ethics train wrecks. The second is a dangerous, Titanic-leval gash in the side of an American institution crucial to the survival of our democracy. The third is arguably more noise and angst than substance, but a more spectacular example of the ethics train wreck phenomenon that either of the other two. As the genre requires, everyone boarding the thing is acting unethically, including the journalists covering it.

I am going to, for once, only lightly touch on the mainstream media’s unethical handling of the shooting and the reactions to it by pointing out this: The New York Post’s Alexandra Steigrad reported last week that CBS News ordered its staffers to avoid “any mention” that Tennessee school shooter Audrey Hale was a transgender individual. The apparent theory is that doing so will undermine the cause of transgender activists, so the news must be scrubbed to advance the greater good, or something.

Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!

After the tragedy, the mindless took over. There has been a powerful, passionate anti-gun movement in the U.S. for as long as I can remember. When I was a child, it was handguns that the activists wanted to ban. Now it is semi-automatic weapons. The immovable object then and now was the Second Amendment; it just isn’t going anywhere, and that increasingly drives gun-haters crazy with frustration, as banging one’s head against a steel wall will do. This became a full-fledged ethics train wreck in 2012, when a mentally-ill 20 year-old man, Adam Lanza, stole his mother’s guns and attacked the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, murdering 26 people, twenty of them children between six and seven years old. It was a previously unimaginable act of pure evil, and it propelled the anti-gun crusade into hyperdrive by adding the pure emotion of the “Think of the children!” rationalization (#58) to what was already a witches brew of propaganda, bad facts, bad civic literacy, historical and cultural ignorance, hysteria, incompetent ethical analysis and cynical partisan exploitation. In the intervening 20 years, every active shooter on a college campus or in a school has set off another intense outburst of the vile “Second amendment supporters care more about guns than the lives of our children!” mantra. (more about that shortly.)

On March 30, Democratic state representatives Justin Jones, Justin Pearson and Gloria Johnson joined demonstrators in the statehouse who disrupted the legislature with a boisterous protest to demand “stricter gun control laws,” despite there being no evidence at all that any such measures would have prevented Hale’s rampage. The three House members assisted in the disruption in the chamber, even leading chants of the ever-popular “No Justice, No Peace!” through a bullhorn. Jones held up fatuous a sign that read “Protect kids, not guns.”

Continue reading →

The Complete List Of Rationalizations To Excuse Justice Thomas’ Gross Betrayal Of Judicial Ethics, And Other Updates (Part II)

/ Jack Marshall / 72 Comments

There are three matters I intended to include in Part I, but somehow failed:

1. Thomas’s wife, the hard right activist Ginni, is more of a toxic influence on Clarence that I had thought or hoped. It still doesn’t justify the Justice being accused of a conflict: as a society we simply cannot embrace the idea that husbands are responsible for the activities of their wives or vice-versa. However, Ginni’s fingerprints seem all over this mess.

2. To be clear: assuming Thomas was legally obligated to report the benefits of the vacations that did not meet the statuary exceptions for hospitality, that would not be legitimate reason to remove him. Far more serious, and in my view why he should resign, is whom he took the vacations with, as well as who paid for them. Those details are what raise the appearance of impropriety, and it is that, not the technical failure to report, that makes his conduct unforgivable in a Supreme Court Justice.

3. When the next Gallup poll regarding public trust in institutions and professions rolls around this winter, and SCOTUS, once the branch of the government held in the highest regard by the public, again sinks, Thomas will be a major reason. And if I am polled, I will vote with the disillusioned.

Now on to the rationalizations. Not only have I been dismayed at how many pundits, conservative commentators an Ethics Alarms readers have rushed to defend Justice Thomas when there really is no defense for his conduct, but it is also disturbing that none of these have produced an argument that isn’t transparently contrived. The following rationalizations on the Ethics Alarms list seem to encompass the entire thrust of the “Thomas shouldn’t resign” briefs. How depressing. Here they are, with some brief comments:

Continue reading →

And While We’re On The Subject Of Historical Airbrushing, THIS…

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Minnesota, which has a lot of explaining to do after inflicting the George Floyd Freakout and The Great Stupid on the nation that have collectively killed thousands, devastated major cities, exacerbated racial tensions and divided public opinion almost to the breaking point, is apparently now trying to recast the whole mess as an act of God, or something.

Of course, if this is the plan, the news media will lead the way. In the above tweet, KARE , the Minneapolis NBC affiliate serving the Twin Cities area refers to the 2020 George Floyd riots that destroyed businesses and devastated large sections of Minneapolis as “the 2020 fires.”

David Strom had a trenchant observation regarding such “journalism” yesterday, noting that,

Continue reading →

Pretending History Didn’t Happen Because You Wish It Had Been Different

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

That’s a photo from the popular Canadian TV series “Slasher: Ripper,” which just began its 5th season. The actor is Gabriel Darku who, as you can see, is a black performer, but for some reason is playing a rising Toronto police detective in an integrated police department in the late 19th Century. There were no rising black police detectives in the late 19th Century, and certainly not with that hair-style. Even more remarkable is another character in the series, a black, female surgeon and medical examiner.

Of course, the race issue never comes up in conversation: race doesn’t exist, apparently. The show, like so many others, is set in a universe where racial bias, caste systems and discrimination doesn’t exist. I’m only picking on “Slasher: Ripper” because I happened upon it last night (the show also has a “non-binary” female in male garb character whom everyone treats as no different from anyone else). There are a lot of period shows that engage in this fantasy. Another is Netflix’s “Enola Holmes.”

Let me say without hesitation: I don’t care. I know this is all part of the effort to make more acting opportunities for minority actors (and fewer for white actors) in pursuit of fairness, diversity, and inclusion, yada yada. OK: as always, my position as a a critic, director and ethicist is that as long as such non-traditional casting works, and doesn’t diminish the entertainment value or become a distraction to most audience members, go crazy, man! I don’t find Darku so extraordinary an actor that his ahistorical casting seems justifiable in artistic terms—I find him rather wooden and boring—but that’s just me. However…

Continue reading →

The Complete List Of Rationalizations To Excuse Justice Thomas’ Gross Betrayal Of Judicial Ethics, And Other Updates (Part I) [Revised and Expanded]

/ Jack Marshall / 28 Comments

Just in case you’re wondering, I stand by everything in my previous post about Justice Thomas’s unprecedented breach of judicial ethics and his obligations as a Supreme Court justice, except my belief that Thomas would resign, or be forced to. Not for the first time, I badly over-estimated the integrity of a public servant. Other points…

1. Above is Thomas’s statement this morning regarding the ProPublica report that he has been accepting lavish trips from conservative donor and billionaire Harlan Crow for decades. It is garbage, top to bottom:

  • The fact that the Thomases and the Crows are good friends or old friends is irrelevant, and is no defense.  Of course SCOTUS justices can have friends, and can socialize. However, many of the vacations the Crows took Clarence an Ginni on included other politically interested conservatives, who has access to Justice Thomas and an opportunity to pursue their interests with him as a captive audience. Moreover, one reason such situations suggest impropriety is the Cognitive Dissonance scale: gifts tend to raise the giver and what the giver is linked to on the scale of the receiver. This is why legislators and government employees are limited by laws in what kinds of gifts they receive. The legal ethics rules also caution against accepting expensive gifts from clients, because it might interfere with independent judgment, even though lawyers are supposed to already be on their clients’ sides.
  • “Family trips” is deceit. More than just the Crow family went on these trips. Thomas is obfuscating.
  • What “colleagues”? When was “early in his tenure”? Thomas joined the Court in 1991, well before the vacations with the Crows began. Are we supposed to believe he asked about gifts and junkets like these before they were offered? By colleagues, does he mean other justices? “I once asked somebody and they said it was okay” is a particularly unconvincing justification. 
  • Our first unethical rationalization, and it’s a lulu:#4 Marion Barry’s Misdirection, or “If it isn’t illegal, it’s ethical.” Thomas is saying that because no official standards prohibited what he did until recently, what he did was okay. Wrong! Rules, laws and standards don’t make unethical conduct wrong, ethical principles do. Thomas knew that the vacations violated well-accepted and near-universal principles of judicial ethics. He was and is a judge, and judges must avoid the appearance of impropriety and influence. For a Supreme Court justice to invoke the same corrupt logic as D.C.’s rogue mayor is disgusting and depressing.
  • It is false to say that the trips were not “reportable.” Of course they were reportable: Thomas deliberately chose not to report them.

Continue reading →

“Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” ABC Blotting Out Trump’s Text Number Sign Was Just A “Misunderstanding”….

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Sure.

The broadcast of ABC’s “Good Morning America” chose to blur out the portion of Donald Trump’s podium that showed a number for supporters to contact and donate to the former president’s 2024 campaign as he was condemning his indictment by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg.

The number on the podium was also blurred out in a video of the segment on the show’s Twitter account and in a video on the network’s YouTube account.

Nice. But it’s all right, because ABC sources explained to the partisan “Daily Beast” that the blurred podium was attributable to a “misunderstanding.” As in “our Democrat and Trump-Deranged employees didn’t understand that they aren’t supposed to openly sabotage politicians they don’t support so obviously”? That must be it.

Then the Beast—boy, it has descended into complete leftist propaganda now—quickly pivoted to “Republicans pounce!” mode:

Continue reading →

Open Forum, But An Abyss Is Not Exactly The Kind Of Opening I’m Looking For…

/ Jack Marshall / 46 Comments

Let’s keep the specific discussions about the Clarence Thomas ethics scandal under the appropriate post today. However, if anyone wants to talk about that larger ethical issues raised by reaction to it here, please do so, because I’d love someone to explain why it isn’t powerful evidence that I’ve been wasting my time. That’s how I feel right now, frankly. And Ethics Alarms takes up too much time in my life if it’s not going to enhance the cause of ethics.

This is not a blog about politics. There is no way to avoid politics, and the area is obviously a rich one for ethics analysis. However, the thesis at Ethics Alarms is that that society rots if ethical considerations are discarded for practical and strategic ones. Meanwhile, the trend in not only politics but journalism, scholarship, law and education, yes, even ethics has been exactly in that direction since I started this project in 2009. I don’t expect this blog to have major impact by itself: I’m not THAT deluded. I have seen, in my weird and eccentric life path, however, examples where my obsessions have had impact beyond my little corner of reality. (See Item #1 here, for example.)

Naively, I assumed that regular members of the commentariat here would agree with what I view as an automatic verdict: Thomas has besmirched the integrity of the Court, called his own judgment and trustworthiness into question, and must resign, consequences be damned. Instead, I am reading substantial support for Thomas, which amounts to a position that judicial ethics don’t matter. In fact, I cannot imagine a profession in which they matter more.

Well, I’ve written too much already here: this is your space and your agenda.

But I am morose. Just thought you should know…

Ethics Verdict: Justice Clarence Thomas Must Resign. Immediately. [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 85 Comments

There is no way to get around this, to rationalize it or to look the other way. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the longest-serving justice on the court and the cornerstone of the current 6-3 conservative majority, must resign from the Court now. Today. There may be a route to impeaching him, but it is dubious and unlikely to succeed in removal.

I had just returned yesterday from giving a presentation to non-profit lawyers on professionalism, lawyers’ duty to do more than just avoid violating the ethics rules, but to comport themselves in a manner that bolsters the public’s trust in the profession. Judges at all levels have the same obligation. When I finally returned to my office and had the time and inclination to catch up on ethics developments, I encountered the news that Justice Thomas not only had breached that obligation in a stunning and unforgivable manner, but has been doings so for more than 20 years.

ProPublica, whose mission is “To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing,” revealed that its investigation into Thomas’s longtime friendship with billionaire conservative donor Harlan Crow had revealed that he and his wife Ginni (a conservative activist) have taken yearly luxury vacations paid for by Crowe as the mogul’s guests. Thomas has also failed to report them.

Continue reading →