Skip to main content

Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court, Wikimedia Commons
House Democrats are intensifying their efforts to shed light on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's ethics problems. Last week, a group of 20 Democrats demanded the Judicial Conference, the governing body for federal courts, investigate Thomas for his failure to report hundreds of thousands of dollars on financial disclosure forms. No word yet on whether the Conference will follow up, so these Democrats are also demanding Congressional hearings into Thomas.
On the steps of the Supreme Court this morning, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and others held a press conference calling on the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings investigating some of Thomas's alleged ethical lapses. These include allegations that he failed to disclose at least $1.6 million in income earned by his wife Virginia, who worked for the conservative Heritage Foundation and has been an active opponent of the Obama health care law. Thomas has also been accused of taking unreported free trips on a corporate jet and a yacht from real estate magnate Harlan Crow.

Blumenauer wrote to the House Judiciary committee members:

"Reports of potential ethical lapses by Justice Thomas's actions give rise to concerns about conflicts of interest undermining appellants' rights of due process and also raise substantive questions about Justice Thomas's ability to retain his seat. We urge that your committee hold hearings regarding the nature of these questions, their factual basis, and their potential to undermine the public's trust in the Supreme Court."

In addition, Rep. Louise Slaughter, in an appearance on Countdown Tuesday night, suggested there's a possibility of forcing a "retroactive recusal," that could potentially also take away Thomas's Citizen's United vote.

SLAUGHTER: [...] But what I'm very interested here, as you know, the votes that he has cast that I think may be in conflict.

And, of course his wife can work. But the fact is there are only nine Justices on that Supreme Court, and it certainly should be a given that a family member of any of those people lucky enough to be a Supreme Court Justice should not in any way involve themselves in matters that will go before that court. Now, we all know she worked very hard for the Citizens United case, which I think is one of the most egregious things that's ever happened in the United States Supreme Court.

OLBERMANN: Agreed.

SLAUGHTER: There is such a thing as a retroactive recusal. We're looking into that. That case, if you remember, was decided 5-4. If we could take away his vote, we could wipe that out. It would lose.[...]

You know, the judiciary is the last place for all of us to go. We are only as good, all of us, as the courts are—only as safe as the courts are good. Their interpretations are really what give us the freedoms, when you come down to it. They have enormous power. I know the attempt is always made to put the very best persons on that court. And I, as I said—again, I'm trying not to prejudge him—but you can't say in my view that what he did was not willful, by failing to report her income. And I think there is no question about it. It is against the law. So we're hoping that the Judiciary Commission will turn this over to the attorney general.

Common Cause has actually initiated an effort to have the Justice Department investigate whether whether Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas should have recused themselves in Citizens United because of their participation in events sponsored by the Koch brothers.

It's impossible that the Republican-controlled House Judiciary committee will launch an investigation and it's also unlikely that a cautious Attorney General like Eric Holder would be willing to take on a Supreme Court Justice. So much of this effort is more intended to get at one thing: shaming Thomas into recusing himself when the Affordable Care Act comes before the Court. That also seems pretty likely, but there's an outside chance that Justice Elena Kagan would also recuse herself, since she was acting as Solicitor General for the administration when the law was passed. Kagan's recusal might just pave the way for Thomas's, though it shouldn't be unilateral.

There's another key point here, though, and that's to shine a light on the fact that Supreme Court justices are essentially untouchable. They are not subject to the same code of conduct that every other member of the federal judiciary must follow. Supreme Court justices, of course, are supposed to be people of such quality, of such integrity, that they would be above reproach and should not be subject to such codes. Rep. Chris Murphy has legislation that would correct that, and end the Court's exemption from judicial ethics laws.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 01:29 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site