When I was growing up, I had certain childhood heroes: Martin Luther King Jr., Mohammed Ali, Pelé, Hannibal and Thurgood Marshall. To show their liberality, Republicans replaced Marshall when he retired from the Supreme Court with his antithesis, Clarence Thomas.
Marshall was a tireless advocate for civil rights and his opinions reflected his passion to protect the underdog, the oppressed and the downtrodden. Thomas, while admitting that he benefitted from affirmative action, has ruled against such programs. He has zealously upheld conservative causes and done much to set back civil rights laws, protections for persons accused of crimes and the right to choose abortion.
ProPublica recently published a blockbuster story about how Thomas and his wife have for years gone on lavish vacations paid for by Republican megadonor and real estate mogul Harlan Crow. All government officials are required to declare gifts so they won’t be misconstrued as bribes, yet in response Thomas put out the following statement: “Early in my tenure at the court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the court, was not reportable.”
I have many friends who hold elective office who insist on paying for their own lunch because they do not want to give the appearance of taking a gift from me, even though we’ve known each other for decades prior to their holding elective office. I respect them for upholding a moral creed, unlike Thomas.
The problem with the Supreme Court is that it is not subject to an ethics code like the president, members of Congress and other federal judges. This lack of an ethics code means that Thomas can cross clear ethical lines that would result in violations by other federal officials, but miraculously do not apply to him and others on our nation’s highest court.
I believe there was an assumption that Supreme Court justices, the ultimate arbiters of the law, would be extremely ethical and honest and would not need a formal ethics code. How wrong that thinking was. Thomas has demonstrated that the court desperately needs one, and if justices violate this code they should face discipline, including potentially being removed from the bench.
In my mind, Thomas has been accepting bribes – that is the only way to describe his receipt of hidden expensive gifts from a man who has donated nearly $15 million in the last three decades to Republican candidates and campaign committees, plus more to right-wing causes. It puts a cloud on every decision that Thomas has ruled upon, because if you’re taking gifts with impunity, how can your rulings be deemed objective and not subject to outside influences?
The first inkling that Thomas’ rulings were tainted was his ruling on Jan. 6 issues, when his wife created a clear conflict by lobbying to overturn the election. Ginni Thomas met with Trump lawyer John Eastman, who was formulating a legal strategy to overturn the 2020 election by having Vice President Mike Pence agree to not certify it. She also sent messages to White House Chief of Staff John Meadows about overturning the election and was requested to appear before the Jan. 6 committee investigating the insurrection.
Reginald J. Clyne, Esq.
Thomas also failed to disclose his wife’s $686,589 income from the Heritage Foundation from 2003 to 2007. Thomas checked a box indicating his wife was not making an income on financial disclosure documents. In 2011, he amended his financials disclosures and revealed his wife’s income from not only the Heritage Foundation, but also Hillsdale College, House Republican leaderships and other sources.
The Supreme Court has lost its esteem in the eyes of many Americans because it appears that its ruling are based on political agendas and not legal precedent or justice. Many current justices swore to follow legal precedent yet ruled against the 50-year-old precedent set in Roe v. Wade. With a 6-3 majority, the current conservative court can undo many of the gains that were earned over the last 60 years. The right to choose was only one of many laws that can now be overturned.
Election gerrymandering to keep Republicans in power could become the law of the land. Overturning civil rights laws, voting right laws and many of the laws that protect us from discrimination are all possible candidates for the chopping block.
Reginald J. Clyne is a Miami trial lawyer who has practiced in some of the largest law firms in the United States. Clyne has been in practice since 1987 and tries cases in both state and federal court. He has lived in Africa, Brazil, Honduras and Nicaragua.