Ugh.
How disgraceful. Here is the headline: “Clarence Thomas must resign because he went on vacation or something.” Despicable.
Justice Thomas, the most extreme conservative jurist on the U.S. Supreme Court, already, in the assessment of Ethics Alarms, has been shown to have engaged in unethical judicial conduct by raising a flaming appearance of impropriety with his acceptance of lavish junkets from an activist conservative billionaire and his failure to report them. The verdict here in April was that Thomas is obligated to resign, and that is still the verdict. His inexcusable conduct not only undermines his own credibility but the credibility and legitimacy of the entire Supreme Court.
But now, there is evidence that Thomas’s conduct was even worse than what was reported last Spring. From Pro Publica:
A cadre of industry titans and ultrawealthy executives have treated him to far-flung vacations aboard their yachts, ushered him into the premium suites at sporting events and sent their private jets to fetch him — including, on more than one occasion, an entire 737. It’s a stream of luxury that is both more extensive and from a wider circle than has been previously understood. Like clockwork, Thomas’ leisure activities have been underwritten by benefactors who share the ideology that drives his jurisprudence. Their gifts include: At least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast. While some of the hospitality, such as stays in personal homes, may not have required disclosure, Thomas appears to have violated the law by failing to disclose flights, yacht cruises and expensive sports tickets, according to ethics experts. Perhaps even more significant, the pattern exposes consistent violations of judicial norms, experts, including seven current and former federal judges appointed by both parties, told ProPublica. “In my career I don’t remember ever seeing this degree of largesse given to anybody,” said Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge who served for years on the judicial committee that reviews judges’ financial disclosures. “I think it’s unprecedented.”
Jeez, I hope it’s unprecedented! The degree of arrogance and dunder-headedness that led Thomas to do this is astounding. He’s known he’s had a target on his back since he was nominated for SCOTUS; he knows, or should know, that he is going to be scrutinized for missteps like no other Justice in the Court’s history. For Thomas to accept such trips and luxuries from parties who stand to benefit from the results of the Court’s deliberations is as irresponsible for a controversial Supreme Court Justice as it would have been for Jackie Robinson to secretly run a numbers game while he was playing for the Dodgers.
Let me repeat what I concluded months ago, and note that I mean it more than ever: “For Republicans and conservatives, this is an integrity test. It should be an easy one. They should make this as painless as possible by demanding Thomas’ resignation loudly and unanimously…”
Of course, we now know that Republicans and conservatives flunked the integrity test, and the Unethical Headline of the Year so far shows just how corrupted by bias the political right is. “Clarence Thomas must resign because he went on vacation or something” is a cynical, truly disgusting attempt to frame a massive betrayal of the public trust as trivial, brushing it aside as “Democrats pounce.” In this, the Right is going down the same unethical road it is currently traveling with Donald Trump. As with the furious rationalizing the continued support of a rogue politician with almost no ethical values for the most powerful position on Earth, refusing to hold Thomas to basic judicial ethics rules is pure and extreme Utilitarianism of the most dangerous kind: the ends justify the means. Accepting the benefits Thomas has accepted from partisan benefactors is bribery in all but legal technicalities. How can conservatives fulminate over Joe Biden’s son accepting cash from foreign interests in the hopes that helping him will endear them to his powerful father, and simultaneously shrug off a Supreme Court Justice who accepts direct gifts from those who quite plausibly are trying to influence his legal deliberations? We don’t know that, you say? It doesn’t matter: it looks that way, and that’s why judges and government officials must avoid the appearance of impropriety!
Everything I wrote about this issue earlier this year is still correct, but even more so than when I wrote it. Clarence Thomas should resign, and conservatives wreck what little credibility and perceived integrity they may have by not insisting that he do so.
Ethics Alarms 
Ugh. I wish conservatives would resist the “it’s a big nothing burger” tactic. Next thing they’ll be saying “The French do it and think nothing of it!”
It is not the right’s job to do the left’s dirty work for it. I have concluded it is no longer a choice between winning unethically and losing ethically, it’s a choice between winning and losing. You and I both know that if the parties were reversed, the same people now baying for Thomas’s blood would be twisting themselves inside out and upside down to defend a liberal Justice who did the same thing. You and I both also know that if the parties were reversed we would never have gotten here because the media would never have dug as deep into the history or behavior of a liberal justice, and in fact they would have probably buried it or claimed it was a “nothingburger.” The fact is that if you know the other side is not going to play fair and in fact is going to play as unfair as they possibly can, you have to match them unfairness for unfairness, dirty tactic for dirty tactic, and cheap shot for cheap shot. This country has gotten to the point where it’s simply a battle until both sides annihilate each other and you only know who won when you finally see who the last man standing is.
I know some of this, actually most of this, is rationalization. I also know it’s not supposed to have come to this. I also know a lot of things in history that were not supposed to get to where they got to. The towers were not supposed to fall, but they did. A single assassination was not supposed to plunge Europe into a war that almost destroyed it and set the stage for the most destructive war in history to date, but it did. My friend was not supposed to have to bury her sister and her nieces are not supposed to be growing up without their mom, and my own niece was not supposed to lose the grandmother who loved her more than anyone else at 7, but cancer sucks.
The relationship between the two political parties in this country has always been dicey. The fact is that the birth of the Republican Party, which was polarized around the end of slavery, helped set this nation on the path to civil war, and it only did not get there in 1856 because John C. Frémont lost to James Buchanan. It’s just as well that it didn’t, for I question whether Frémont (a man who achieved great things and also failed miserably at others) would have been up to the task, but that’s another story. The fact is also that the party almost went into permanent minority status after the Great Depression, and might not have won its first presidential election in 20 years in 1952 if it hadn’t been helped along by the huge unpopularity of Harry S. Truman. The Democratic Party also came pretty damn close to irrelevance in 2004, when they were bowled over by 9/11 and their own poor response, and possibly in 2016, when Hilary did just what they said Trump would do and dragged her party down with her. But somehow the other party has always managed to bounce back. This time, the Democratic party senses a chance to send the GOP permanently out of the picture, and they are attempting in earnest to destroy every prominent conservative they can. The only thing standing in their way, at least for now, is the Supreme Court. So stand they must. There will be time to ease Justice Thomas into retirement when a like-minded successor is guaranteed.
I think it’s safe to say the left has placed the non-left in a state of constant ethics zugzwang. I know, I know, saying so may be defaulting to the revolutionary’s excuse, but here we are.
I think we could be on the cusp of revolt.
Do you remember Maraxus?
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3857818#p3857818
They fight because they’re afraid of what happens to them if you win. So show them that they don’t have to be afraid, that they can live good lives in the world you intend to build. If you intend to take away something they want, what do you intend to replace it with? This is basic politics.
EC,
Still working on that reflection, promise…
In short, though, I would say the Left is afraid of what would happen if the Right wins (whatever winning actually entails) because the Left knows what they would do to the Right if they seized sufficient power. In an inverse reflection, the Right is afraid of what would happen if the Left wins because they have already seen what the Left does when it wins. Working with the Left has been a prolonged Charlie Brown and Lucy Playing Football routine. The Right is endlessly surprised when the Left doesn’t honor their end of the bargain. And now the Right is increasingly frantic because they see themselves blocked at all outlets. The Left controls the federal government and its bureaucracies, the publics schools and higher education, a significant chunk of the news media, and a sizeable portion of the social media. The Right has watched the tactics shift from genuine debate to derision to silencing when it comes to controversial matters. The Right has watched numerous people censored and stories squelched that have ultimately proved true in the end. At this point, the Left has squandered any amount of trust it once possessed with the Right.
Now, the personage on the Right certainly don’t represent any greater moral authority, don’t get me wrong. And while I will still say it is better to go ethically into the night than try to survive through unethical means, I understand very much what Steve-O is saying about having to match tactic with tactic. What has the Right seen in terms of just Supreme Court nominees? The Left has already shown that it will pull out all the stops to smear any candidate the Right proposes, and now is devoted entirely to far-left, diversity candidates. The Right has already seen left-leaning Supreme Courts invent rights out of thin air to favor a political cause. To insist that Thomas resign, no matter how egregious his scandal, is to trust that the Left won’t take advantage of the situation to replace Thomas with the farthest-left-leaning candidate it can. It is to trust that the Left won’t move Heaven and Earth to find any dirt (or make up any dirt) about the other Right-leaning candidates. And the Right can’t do that. There’s no trust left. The Left has used it all up.
Part of the political calculation also includes the toddler-esque temper-tantrum of the Left when it comes to its sacred cows being threatened. Like my 4-year-old, who cannot be consoled with the promise of some other toy when we take some toy away, the Left cannot be consoled by the Right unless the Right gives it exactly what it wants. It is the same with terrorists and toddlers — by giving in to any of their demands, you only encourage more of the temper-tantrums. Four years of temper-tantrums over Trump probably did as much to weary the nation on Trump as anything that Trump actually did. And it has taught the Left that they can win the debate by screaming.
So my question to you is: how? How do you dialogue successfully with someone who is not interested in dialogue, sees dialogue as a weakness in your position, who is looking for the opportunity to take advantage of you, is dishonest in dealing with you, will renege on any promises once your back is turned, and will scream bloody murder when you dare offer the least amount of resistance?
Do you remember Maraxus?
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3857818#p3857818
What would you write to Maraxus?
I have to agree that Thomas has put himself into a position where he has a clear conflict of interest. The scale of favors he has received and his efforts to sweep them under the rug are critically damaging to public trust in his role as a Justice. However, consider what happens if he resigns. The Biden administration, possibly the worst and most corrupt administration in the history of this country, then appoints a new Justice. Having another Ginsburg or Brown on the court means an activist judge who decides cases not on what the law and Constitution says, but on their leftist political ideology. I think Jack has made enough posts on Supreme Court cases to agree with me on that one.
Really there are no good choices here. Defending Thomas means defending unethical behavior, as long as the subject belongs to the right side. I think we have all seen how that has twisted our institutions every time the leftists do so. Do conservatives really want to descend to the same level? Demanding Thomas resign ushers in a new Justice who will continue to shred the Constitution and the law to suit leftist policy. Personally I find this specter even worse than Thomas continuing his shenanigans without penalty, although I understand how allowing ethics rot to fester is a disgusting prospect.
Much like the Trump election issue, I will end up holding my nose and siding with the conservatives/right. Not because they are principled or just, only because the alternative is even worse. What else can you do?
Bribery related to what SC opinion? Are they bringing him for ultra conservative opinions that he already has?
Come on, you know that game. It’s not technically bribery if there isn’t an explicit quid pro quo. But judges are not supposed to play the bribery-not-bribery game, because it looks bad.
Really, I meant it as a serious inquiry. If he rules consistently, where’s the influence?
Is the underlying concern that he has realized how profitable ruling very conservative opinions is to a select group of uber rich people? Thus, the appearance of impropriety?
Have you forgotten about Maraxus?
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3857818#p3857818
– Maraxus
– Maraxus
– Maraxus
– Maraxus
Was Maraxus wrong?