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 →

Lyric Political Correctness In “The Little Mermaid”: Not Unethical, Just “The Great Stupid” Doing What It Does…

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

From the Ethics Alarms mailbag came an inquiry about the latest kerfuffle over the upcoming live action version of “The Little Mermaid.” There are two great production numbers in the original, both sung by a crab: the Academy Award-winning “Under the Sea” and the more sedate “Kiss the Girl,” in which Ariel’s devoted crustacean friend urges Prince Eric, Ariel’s secret love, to take the plunge and kiss the magically land-bound fish-woman.

Here are the original lyrics:

There you see her
Sitting there across the way
She don’t got a lot to say
But there’s something about her
And you don’t know why
But you’re dying to try
You wanna kiss the girl

Yes, you want her
Look at her, you know you do
Possible she wants you too
There is one way to ask her
It don’t take a word
Not a single word
Go on and kiss the girl

Sing with me now
Sha-la-la-la-la-la
My oh my
Look like the boy too shy
Ain’t gonna kiss the girl
Sha-la-la-la-la-la
Ain’t that sad?
Ain’t it a shame?
Too bad, he gonna miss the girl

Now’s your moment (ya, ya, ya)
Floating in a blue lagoon (ya, ya, ya)
Boy, you better do it soon
No time will be better (ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya)
She don’t say a word
And she won’t say a word
Until you kiss the girl

Sha-la-la-la-la-la
Don’t be scared (sha-la, sha-la-la ya, ya, ya)
You got the mood prepared (woah, woah)
Go on and kiss the girl
Sha-la-la-la-la-la
Don’t stop now (sha-la, sha-la-la ya, ya, ya)
Don’t try to hide it how
You want to kiss the girl (woah, woah)
Sha-la-la-la-la-la
Float along (sha-la, sha-la-la)
And listen to the song
The song say kiss the girl (woah, woah)
Sha-la-la-la-la-la
The music play (ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya)
Do what the music say
You got to kiss the girl
You’ve got to kiss the girl
Oh, don’t you wanna kiss the girl
You’ve gotta kiss the girl
Go on and kiss the girl

Via the surviving member of the team that wrote the songs in “Mermaid” (and better yet, “Little Shop of Horrors”), Alan Menken, we learned this week that Disney, which is too woke for its own good these days (and ours), ordered up some lyric changes in the song because “people have gotten very sensitive about the idea that [Prince Eric] would, in any way, force himself on [Ariel].”

Oh, please.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: LSU Women’s Basketball Star Angel Reese

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Wow. What a disrespectful, narcissistic, rude and entitled athlete. Now let’s see if anyone has the guts and integrity to tell her she’s completely in the wrong. My bet: Nah.

LSU beat Iowa for the women’s national championship over the weekend. First Lady Jill Biden, ESPN reported, was in attendance at the decisive game and praised Iowa’s sportsmanship. “I know we’ll have the champions come to the White House; we always do. So we hope LSU will come,” Dr. Jill said. “But, you know, I’m going to tell  Joe  I think Iowa should come, too, because they played such a good game.”

OK, the tradition is for the President to invite the winning team in such situations, so suggesting that the losing team deserved an invite to was a bit naive. But truly: big deal. Never mind: LSU star Angel Reese decided that it was justification to blow a gasket and throw a tantrum. Later, someone told Jill that this wasn’t the way it was done, and the First Lady had her press secretary  “walk back” and spin the first lady’s comments, saying they “were intended to applaud the historic game and all women athletes. She looks forward to celebrating the LSU Tigers on their championship win at the White House.” In other words, she didn’t mean what she said, when obviously, at the time, she did.

A gracious, mature individual who knows that our elected leaders and their family members deserve to be accorded a bit more generosity and respect in general and be given some consideration and empathy when they make gaffes than the family next door that gets drunk and parties all night would have left the matter at that, but not Angel, who told a podcast, Continue reading →

“A Republic, If You Can Keep It”: Ethics Reflections On Chicago’s Mayoral Election

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

Having just rejected a hard-left Democratic mayor whose leadership and policies left the city of Chicago in the midst of crises in its schools and on the streets, the besieged city’s voters took stock, thought hard, and elected a new mayor who promises more of the same. Brandon Johnson, a Cook County commissioner and Chicago Teachers Union organizer, squeaked out a victory over Paul Vallas, a former Chicago Public Schools CEO. This indicates mass incompetence and ignorance by the city’s electorate, as well as apathy and a flat learning curve.

Let’s begin with the fact that Johnson, who advocates raising taxes (on “the rich,” of course) didn’t deliver on many of his own financial obligations. He finally had to pay up once he was elected, because Chicago has a law blocking deadbeats from taking office. Before that, however, he owed $3,357 in water and sewer bills as well as$1,044 in unpaid traffic tickets dating back to 2014 and 2015. Johnson’s campaign’s official rationalization for this was essentially the ever-popular “Everybody does it”:

“Like many working and middle class Chicagoans, the Johnson household has received various fines and fees from the City of Chicago over the years. These fines and fees are on a previously established payment plan and are on schedule to be fully resolved before Brandon Johnson takes office as our next mayor.”

But the mayor of the city is not like other citizens. He (or she) is supposed to be an exemplary citizen, and one who can lead by example. Johnson, obviously, can’t. The new Mayor-Elect also defaulted on a Capital One credit card debt of more than $3,600 in 2016. Chicago, meanwhile, is in the midst of its own fiscal problems. Choosing a guy with Johnson’s cavalier attitude toward financial obligations is pure incompetence.

Continue reading →

“Apparently Donald Trump Is A Ham Sandwich,” Continued: Prof. Turley Weighs In, Among Others

/ Jack Marshall / 40 Comments

I’ve been looking for commentary by legal and ethics experts I trust that defend Alvin Bragg’s indictment of Donald Trump, now that the thing is in black and white. (Speaking of White: old Popehat blogger Ken White was one of the first I checked. The former Ethics Alarms Award-winner as best ethics blogger has so far avoided the topic, I suspect because he regards explaining why an indictment of someone he obviously detests is a lot of hooey with the same eagerness he applies to having sex with a horseshoe crab.) In the earlier post today, Ethics Alarms looked at Andrew McCarthy’s analysis, which was searing in its contempt for Bragg’s efforts. Later, I discovered that one of the Washington Post’s worst knee-jerk progressive members of its editorial board, Ruth Marcus, wrote,

…the indictment unsealed on Tuesday is disturbingly unilluminating, and the theory on which it rests is debatable at best, unnervingly flimsy at worst.That is a scary situation when it comes to the first criminal charges ever lodged against a former president.

Then she almost immediately demonstrated why I hold her in such contempt by adding,

I’m not saying prosecutors will lose this case. They could well win, and I hope they do, because a failure to secure a conviction will only inflame Trump and his supporters in their claims that the criminal justice system is being weaponized against them.

Got that? She hopes Bragg wins a bad case and Trump is convicted because Trump and his supporters will have evidence to support the “claim” that the criminal justice system is being weaponized against them. Somebody explain to Marcus, a lawyer, though it always astonished me that she is, that ethical lawyers don’t want defendants to be convicted on bogus charges no matter who they are.

Continue reading →

Now THAT’S An Unethical Concession Speech!

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election Tuesday gave Democrats (well, liberals/progressives—the election is supposedly non-partisan) a one-vote majority as it faces deliberations over the state’s abortion ban, its gerrymandered legislative districts and the voting rules for the 2024 presidential election. Milwaukee County Judge Janet Protasiewicz’s defeated former state Supreme Court justice Daniel Kelly and ended 15 years of conservative control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Kelly’s concession speech made Richard Nixon look gracious. Ethics Dunce, Unethical Quote, Incompetent UN-elected official—Kelly qualifies for several EA designations, none of them positive. His speech alone shows that the voters made the right choice. Who wants a judge with such atrocious judgment?

What a jerk.

________________

Pointer: valkygrrl

New Rule! Only White, Straight Men Need To Be Civil

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Last week, a looming $30 million budget shortfall prompted NPR to eliminate 10% of its staff across all its departments.  It killed several podcasts and so far, 84 employees are gone; more will follow.

One of the podcasts sent into the archives was “Louder Than A Riot,” which explored how hip-hop’s “Black women and queer folk have dealt with the same oppression [hip-hop] was built to escape.” So after getting the bad news, “Louder Than A Riot’s” staff took to Twitter and accused NPR of bias in its layoff decisions:

What support for that did the angry staff have? Oh, none. But NPR is a nest of progressives who don’t believe in ethics, so playing the discrimination card was a reflex, and Facts Don’t Matter. As it turned out, NPR did engage in discrimination, but the “good’ kind:  the layoffs had been  “structured in a way” so they would not disproportionately affect people of color and other marginalized groups. In other words, skin color and sexual proclivities were used to decide who to fire, and being white and non-LGTBQ was held against employees.

That’s unethical.

Also illegal.

Also “Diversity Equity and Inclusion” exemplified. Continue reading →