Recently, Justice Thomas and his wife received a trip to Indonesia with Crow in 2019 which would have reportedly cost Justice five hundred thousand dollars if he had financed the trip himself. According to USA Today, Thomas's "failure to disclose such gifts appeared to violate federal gift and travel disclosure requirements." While the Supreme Court law and policy are most definitely vague, there is an exemption allowed for financial disclosure reports regarding gifts from personal friends, however, it is important to acknowledge that the nature of this exemption is for "small personal gifts from longtime friends, not lavish gifts" as stated by multiple ethics experts including the former deputy assistant attorney general, Lisa Graves.
Justice Thomas is no stranger to controversy, with his wife coming into question regarding a leak in Supreme Court happenings in 2022, yet this most recent occurrence is creating a much larger problem regarding the American public's trust in the Supreme Court and the ethics of the judiciary. Many members of the democratic party, most notably Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have called for Justice Thomas to be impeached, while others have called on Chief Justice John Roberts to investigate Thomas' unethical behaviors. Overall, the major issue with Justice's relations with Harlan Crow is whether these gifts have swayed the justices' decisions in the court and whether the Justice is being swayed by the agenda of his supporters or the facts of the cases brought before him.
Ultimately, the lack of ethics, the unwillingness to disclose the gifts on his financial statements, and the possible reality that others in the judiciary support Justice Thomas's actions make the need for reform in the Supreme Court all the more apparent. The Judicial branch is currently illuminating the dangerous nature of public interest groups, and the under-regulated nature of donations and financial support to members of our government. Thus, fostering a lack of trust amongst the American people for the federal government when it is a blatant possibility that our court's decisions could be swayed by financial donations and the personal interests of those making them.
3 comments:
I agree with your point about this situation highlighting the need for potential change within the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has been expected to be the objective branch of the government, but like you said there is a strong possibility that gifts like this can play a role in swaying decisions. With lifetime tenure, justices have a much longer leash than they should to be in these controversies. While it's unlikely that voters can be objective due to everyone's individual political belief systems, one can make a strong argument that the result of an election can act as more objective than the actions of a lifetime-tenured justice who can easily receive nice little gifts from their "friends."
It is crucial for the Supreme Court to be objective in order to ensure that justice is served fairly and impartially. As we have learned, the Court's decisions have significant implications for the rights and freedoms of individuals, as well as for society as a whole. If the Court is swayed by personal biases or outside influences, its rulings may be unjust and undermine the integrity of the legal system. Objectivity allows the Court to make decisions based on the law and the facts of each case, rather than personal opinions or political considerations. As we are seeing here, the “gifts” Justice Thomas is receiving undermine this impartiality. Unfortunately, this means that the court is less focused on upholding the principles of equality and justice under the law, and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people.
I agree with Nick that the Supreme Court MUST be objective and non-corrupt. Unfortunately, Clarence Thomas seems about as corrupt as can be at the moment. To me, this casts doubt on the legitimacy of every vote he has cast and the entire judicial system. Supreme Court justices must exercise FAR better judgement and not accept "gifts" AKA bribes from extreme political donors.
I mean Clarence Thomas claims that the bribes are gifts from a long-time friend, yet they only became friends after Thomas was on the SCOTUS. Very sus indeed.
Post a Comment