What position did “presents” play in preserving Justice Thomas on the Supreme Court docket?
It will not be bribery, however it nonetheless exerts affect.
·
Monday 18 December 2023
· 7 feedback
![[Clarence Thomas]](https://otb.cachefly.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Clarence-Thomas-570x425.png)
Over the previous 12 months, quite a lot of tales have come out in regards to the many presents Supreme Court docket Justice Clarence Thomas has acquired from welfare donors. Nearly all of this work is completed by ProPublica, typically along side different reporting organizations. This has partly led to a name to the Supreme Court docket to undertake some authorized ethics guidelines. It has additionally led to questions on whether or not or not the presents (lots of which weren’t reported on the time) constituted bribery.
To boil down the bribery dialogue, the query comes down as to if these presents led Decide Thomas to rule or affect the court docket to rule a sure method in instances involving the donors, significantly actual property magnate and Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow. One of many defenses to the bribery cost was that Decide Thomas determined these instances in methods constant along with his prior jurisprudence. If the presents didn’t result in any change in Thomas’ long-standing conservative habits, how might they be bribes.
This morning, ProPublica added one other story that strikes the dialog in a special route. This report paperwork how, within the 12 months 2000 (greater than twenty years in the past), Thomas gave an off-the-record speech to a gathering of conservatives about how the low salaries precipitated quite a lot of Supreme Court docket justices to think about retirement. From the article:
In early January 2000, Supreme Court docket Justice Clarence Thomas discovered himself at a five-star seaside resort in Sea Island, Georgia, a whole lot of hundreds of {dollars} in debt.
After almost a decade on the sphere, Thomas had change into pissed off along with his monetary scenario, in accordance with mates. He had lately begun elevating his younger great-nephew, and Thomas’ spouse sought recommendation on find out how to deal with the brand new bills. The month earlier than, the decide had borrowed $267,000 from a good friend to purchase a high-end RV.
On the resort, Thomas gave a speech at an off-the-record conservative convention. He discovered himself sitting subsequent to a Republican member of Congress on the airplane house. The 2 males spoke, and the lawmaker left the dialog apprehensive that Thomas may resign.
Congress ought to give Supreme Court docket justices a increase, Thomas advised him. If lawmakers did not act, “a number of judges will depart quickly” — maybe within the subsequent 12 months.
On the time, Thomas’ wage was $173,600, equal to over $300,000 right now. However he was one of many least rich members of the court docket, and on a number of events throughout that interval he pushed for tactics to earn more money. In different non-public conversations, Thomas repeatedly talked about eradicating a ban on judges giving paid speeches.
Thomas’ efforts have been detailed in information from the time obtained by ProPublica, together with a confidential memo to Chief Justice William Rehnquist from a top judicial official seeking guidance on what he called a “delicate case.”
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-complaints-sparked-resignation-fears-scotus
The entire story is free via ProPublica, and I highly recommend reading it. This is the part of the article that I particularly want to highlight:
Congress never lifted the ban on speaking fees or gave judges a major raise. But in the years since, as ProPublica has reported, Thomas accepted an outpouring of gifts from friends and acquaintances that appears to be unparalleled in the Supreme Court’s modern history. Some incurred living expenses big and small – private school tuition, car batteries, tires. Other gifts from a coterie of ultra-rich men supplemented his lifestyle, such as free international vacations on Dallas real estate billionaire Harlan Crow’s private jet and superyacht.
Exactly what prompted so many people to offer Thomas money and other gifts remains an open question. There is no evidence that Justice ever raised the specter of resigning with Crow or his other wealthy benefactors.
George Priest, a Yale Law School professor who has vacationed with Thomas and Crow, told ProPublica that he believes Crow’s generosity was not intended to sway Thomas’ views, but rather to make his life more comfortable. “He views Thomas as a Supreme Court justice as having a limited salary,” Priest said. “So he gives him advantages.”
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-complaints-sparked-resignation-fears-scotus
I think it is quite right that Crow does not try to influence Thomas’s political views. Both men are conservatives, and I suspect they pretty much agree on most issues. However, there is a separate question about the extent to which the lavish gifts are to blame for Thomas being able to stay on the pitch. This is especially important to consider because, if so, these gifts helped preserve the Court’s conservative wing for more than 20 years.
Is it specifically bribery? Probably not – unless you want to make the strained argument that they are a running bribe to change Thomas’ mind about leaving the bench for a more lucrative job in private practice. That said, the revelations show the complex interplay between dark money and politics.
This also shows the need for the Supreme Court to adopt a stricter code of ethics than the weak tea they reluctantly announced last month.*
* – I’m sure some of our conservative readers will be tempted to respond to this post with “what about Liberal Justice X’s gifts.” Most of the current court have had problems with gift reporting at one time or another, though none have yet shown as significant or as long a pattern as Thomas. More importantly, I think these issues are also evidence of the need for a strict code of ethics. So unless you are opposed to a code of ethics, I think we actually agree that things need to change to protect the reputation of the court.
Thanks also to Nicholas Grossman for the heads up on the article this morning: