Clarence Thomas makes a mockery of ethical standards | Editorial

Clarence Thomas would have been perfect on Philadelphia’s old scandal-plagued Traffic Court, a home for hack judges known for fixing parking tickets and other schemes that ran afoul of the law. But he should not be on the U.S. Supreme Court, where his ethical lapses and extremist views continue to tarnish a once-respected institution.

Beyond being a supercilious idealogue, Thomas never should have been confirmed to the highest court in the land. Prior to receiving his lifetime appointment in 1991, Thomas was accused of sexual harassment.

His confirmation hearing foreshadowed the #MeToo movement that brought down many leading men in Hollywood, politics, media, and corporate America.

Two respected investigative reporters detailed how Thomas likely perjured himself during his confirmation hearings. A right-wing author who smeared Thomas’ accuser later admitted he lied and was “a witting cog in the Republican sleaze machine.”

Thomas spent years on the court without speaking a word during oral arguments. Perhaps he was dreaming about his next free exotic vacation.

ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative journalism organization, reported last week that for more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips from Republican billionaire mega-donor Harlan Crow. Thomas and his wife, Virginia, traveled on Crow’s private jet and yacht to far-flung locations, and each summer stayed at his private resort in the Adirondacks, where they hobnobbed with other influential right-wingers.

» READ MORE: The Supreme Court makes a hard right turn — and the nation lurches backward | Editorial

One 2019 trip alone was valued at $500,000. Thomas did not report the lavish junkets on his financial disclosures, which appeared to violate a law requiring judges and elected officials to disclose most gifts.

Thomas claimed he “sought guidance from colleagues and others in the judiciary” and was told he didn’t have to report the trips because they came from a close personal friend who did not have business before the court. This may not be the correct legal term, but Thomas’ excuse is poppycock.

Crow may not have specific business before the court, but he has an interest in influencing and shaping it, along with the kind of privileged access that too often comes with money — which is everything that is wrong with politics.

The Texas billionaire, heir to a real estate fortune, was an early donor to the Club for Growth, an anti-tax group. He is on the board of the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank.

Crow has made more than $10 million in political contributions and given to “dark money” groups whose donors are not publicly disclosed. He also donated millions of dollars to organizations committed to tort reform and conservative jurisprudence, including the Federalist Society, the breeding ground for conservative judges.

Crow has an agenda, and Thomas is likely one of his tools. Is it coincidence that their friendship began after Thomas joined the Supreme Court?

In addition to the trips, Crow gave Thomas a Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass valued at $19,000 and donated $105,000 to the “Justice Thomas Portrait Fund” at Yale Law School, where Thomas graduated. Crow also gave $500,000 to a tea party group founded by Thomas’ wife, which paid her a salary of $120,000.

Thomas’ lack of integrity was already on view last year when he failed to recuse himself from cases that touched on his wife’s involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

» READ MORE: With Roe decision, Supreme Court sneers at precedent — and places women’s health in jeopardy | Editorial

Of course, at least one Fox News host and the Wall Street Journal editorial board, two conservative news outlets controlled by Rupert Murdoch, defended Thomas. One can only imagine the meltdown at Fox if the facts were different and, say, Justice Sonia Sotomayor went on trips funded by George Soros.

Senate Judiciary Chair Richard Durbin (D., Ill.) said the Senate “will act.” An investigation is needed, though any action from the Senate is unlikely to produce results. Thomas should resign, but it is unlikely he will do what is right.

Chief Justice John Roberts defended the court last year from critics who complained about its politicization after the court overturned nearly 50 years of precedent in Roe v. Wade.

Trust in the court has plummeted. The justices could help restore some faith in the court by requiring the same ethical standards required of lower-court judges. Beyond that, the Supreme Court should stick to interpreting the law and stop playing politics.