U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni Thomas are under fresh scrutiny as yet another revelation, this one reported by the Washington Post on Thursday evening shows Ginni received tens of thousands of dollars in off-the-book compensation from a powerful right-wing nonprofit shortly before the group “soon would have an interest before the court”—a pivotal voting rights case.
Based on documents reviewed by the Post, right-wing judicial activist Leonard Leo used his role as an advisor to the nonprofit, the Judicial Education Project, to ask GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway, later a top aide to President Donald Trump, to pay Ginni Thomas a large sum but keep her name off the financial records.
“Leo, a key figure in a network of nonprofits that has worked to support the nominations of conservative judges,” the reporting explains, “told Conwaythat he wanted her to ‘give’ Ginni Thomas ‘another $25K,’ the documents show. He emphasized that the paperwork should have ‘No mention of Ginni, of course.'”
“Leonard Leo has written the definition of court corruption. These shady schemes are a call to action to bring about ethics reform at the highest levels of the judiciary.” —Kyle Herrig, Accountable.US
In response to the new revelations, Kyle Herrig, president of the public interest advocacy group Accountable.US, said “Leonard Leo has written the definition of court corruption. These shady schemes are a call to action to bring about ethics reform at the highest levels of the judiciary.”
In defense of the secrecy of the payments to Ginni Thomas’s firm—which according to the Post totaled $80,000 between June 2011 and June 2012, but may have been more overall—Leo said in a statement to the newspaper that it was necessary to keep her name out of any disclosures because of how “disrespectful, malicious and gossipy people” can be in the political sphere.
“I have always tried to protect the privacy of Justice Thomas and Ginni,” Leo claimed.
“Each day that passes, the Supreme Court is looking less like a bench and more like an auction house. Thomas should resign immediately…” —Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Crucially, months after these payments were made to Ginni Thomas, the Judicial Education Project filed an amicus brief in the case Shelby County v. Holder, taking the side of those opposed to a key provision in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As the Post notes:
The court struck down a formula in the Voting Rights Act that determined which states had to obtain federal clearance before changing their voting rules and procedures. Clarence Thomas was part of the 5-to-4 majority.
Thomas issued a concurring opinion in the case, arguing that the preclearance requirement itself is unconstitutional. Thomas’s opinion, which was consistent with a previous opinion he wrote, favored the outcome the Judicial Education Project and several other conservative organizations had advocated in their amicus briefs. He did not cite the Judicial Education Project brief.
But progressive political observers said the corruption was impossible not to see—especially given the wave of revelations about lavish gifts and financial arrangements between Justice Thomas and billionaire Harlan Crow, a right-wing mega-donor.
“This is corruption. Plain and simple,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in reaction to the latest revelation. “And each day that passes, the Supreme Court is looking less like a bench and more like an auction house. Thomas should resign immediately and Roberts should see to it that he does.”
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate
1 Comment
The adage, “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely,” is a profound subject and this is no place to attempt to unravel the psychological, social, family, and other experiences involved. But it is clear that those in power, and in the US supreme court justices are the most “enshrined” public officials in government. Lifetime terms, judicial garb, working in secret, and other dimensions, only removable through the complex process of impeachment, this is as close as we can get to monarchical processes–although the imperial presidency has also gained prerogative that was not initially, perhaps, foreseen in all its power and grandeur. Nonetheless, human beings need restraint–another complex issue–and it is clear that restraint on the members of the Supreme Court has been reduced to utterly near non-existent levels. This is yet another indication of how fragile and endangered is whatever degree of democracy actually exists in the US, which has always been a question of degree rather than actuality. Or, we might say a hope on the part of some of the society rather than a reality.