Troubling
Dear Editor,
The observation Justice is blind dates back to Greek political thinkers. They are, however, silent on the blindness of the Judges themselves, instead lumping them with the rest of humanity, who are subject to faults and foibles. Recently disclosed, Justice Clarence Thomas indulged his human weakness for ego flattering gifts. His benefactor, Texas billionaire Harlan Crow lavished private jet trips, vacations and even tuition for a nephew ostensibly in the name of friendship. In effect, Crow bought his way into the Supreme Court, brazenly in the open.
To defend accepting undeclared gifts and favors, Thomas claimed he acted under advisement – we do not know by whom, or on what basis advice was given. Thomas – caught with his hand in the cookie jar – subsequently agreed to comply with new disclosure rules. Until recently, Thomas did not speak from the bench choosing reticence for his tenure, a troubling practice for a discerning judge. If he sought clarification on any matter before the court, he could-of/ should-of questioned from the bench unless he already made up his mind beforehand on just about everything.
Thomas is known to be a Constitutional Originalist, meaning if not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it was not meant to be, essentially blocking progress beyond the slave holding eighteenth century. Ginny Thomas, Thomas’s wife, is a paid political advocate for extreme right wing causes, and is an election denier with access to the WH. Her calls to Mark Meadows, Trump’s Chief Of Staff, on Jan 6 in support of insurrection are in the public record. In sum, neither Thomas nor his wife passes the smell test.
The Senate Judiciary Committee invited Chief Justice Roberts to appear for a hearing to investigate ethics violations in the court. He refused citing the court and the behavior of appointed judges are not accountable to Congress; they are independent. Robert’s appearance would have brought into discussion the inflated speaking fees Judges receive for appearances, book advances, gifts, political involvement, questionable perks and whether these activities involve conflicts of interest. All of which needs to be disclosed for any transparent, government body, including the Supreme Court. Presently, the Court’s approval rating is the lowest in decades, for good reason.
The court enjoys unfettered secrecy and excessive power. Present behavior shows the court incapable of policing itself and – more troubling – unwilling. Time for Congress to do that for them.
Barry Zaltman