EDITORIAL: Clarence Thomas A troubling pattern of false reports
Apr. 20—In 1969 it came to light that an associate justice of the Supreme Court, Abe Fortas, had received a $20,000 retainer from a financier who was being investigated for insider trading. Fortas returned the money, but was ultimately forced to resign.
That specific retainer was but one of a series of controversies surrounding Fortas, a longtime confidant of Lyndon Johnson, the president who put him on the high court and tried unsuccessfully to elevate him to the position of chief justice. The downfall of Fortas seems a relevant historical precedent as we contemplate the various ethical issues surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas, a current member of that same court.
Thomas has been criticized for not recusing himself from cases arising from the 2020 presidential election even though his wife, Virginia Thomas, was a prominent and vocal advocate of overturning certain electoral votes.
More recently, journalists from various outlets have been digging into Thomas' financial disclosure statements and finding glaring discrepancies and omissions:
—First, ProPublica reported that Thomas has not disclosed lavish vacations provided him by a Republican donor and Hitler memorabilia collector. At least one of those vacations, the nonprofit journalism operation reported, would have cost more than $500,000.
—It followed by reporting that the same benefactor purchased real estate — two vacant lots and the home of Thomas' mother, all in Georgia — from Thomas. Those transactions, again, were left off Thomas' disclosure forms.
—The Washington Post then reported that Thomas has been reporting between $50,000 to $100,000 annually from a Nebraska real estate firm called Ginger, Ltd., Partnership that was started by his wife's family and dissolved in 2006. Thomas continued claiming income from the defunct firm. The company's assets were transferred to a different firm, of which Virginia Thomas is not listed as a principal.
—Thomas also for years listed his wife's income as "none" during a period in which she was paid almost $700,000 by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank. He has since amended the disclosure forms to correct that.
—He has also omitted a variety of speaking fees and reimbursements.
It's too much to shrug off as oversights. At best he is chronically sloppy and unconcerned about the required disclosures; at worst he is hiding corrupt dealings. Either way, it does not suggest a jurist who belongs on the land's highest court.
The pattern suggests that Clarence Thomas believes that rules are for chumps without lifetime appointments or the support of a Capitol tribe that operates on the basis that ethical standards do not apply to Washington Republicans.
Meanwhile, the moral authority long enjoyed by the Supreme Court slips into the mist of a distant past, a past in which a justice would resign over ethical failures.
