Get Ready To Growl …

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been in the news quite a bit lately for his apparent taking of bribes by wealthy businessmen, most notably Harlan Crow, but others as well.  You’re likely to hear even more about him in the coming days, as ProPublica published an article today that should make you growl.

First off, though, let it be noted that Clarence Thomas’ net worth is approximately $32 million!  Say it nice and slow … thirty-two million dollars.  His annual salary is $274,200 per year … more than a quarter of a million dollars.  For comparison purposes, the average worker in the U.S. earns $60,000.  Justice Thomas is not, by any stretch of the imagination, poor or even middle class … he is wealthy.  Period.

Apparently, though, back in the year 1999, Thomas was deep in debt and had to borrow money … not, mind you, to buy groceries, keep the lights on, or clothe his child, but he borrowed $267,000 from a friend to buy a luxury recreational vehicle (RV).

The next January, Thomas gave a speech at an off-the-record conservative conference at a five-star beach resort in Sea Island, Georgia.  On the flight home, he was seated next to a member of Congress, Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida.  He complained to Mr. Stearns about his salary, then a mere $173,600, and how he could barely survive on that.  (Are you growling yet?)  Mr. Stearns promised to do what he could to raise the salaries of the members of the Supreme Court, as apparently Thomas indicated the possibility that he might resign … due to the low salary and the rules that disallow justices from giving paid speeches.

Stearns went back to Congress to plead Thomas’ case, because as he said recently …

“His importance as a conservative was paramount. We wanted to make sure he felt comfortable in his job and he was being paid properly.”

Translation:  We wanted to make sure we kept people on the Court who would slash women’s rights, civil rights, and cater to the wealthy, white, Christian male.

Interestingly, though, it was around this time that people like Harlan Crow and others began giving ‘gifts’ to Justice Thomas, and by 2003, his financial situation was changing for the better.  Note, also, that his wife Virginia (aka ‘Ginny’) was employed by the notorious Heritage Foundation for a six-figure salary, as well.

If the money is so important to Thomas, that suggests to me that he isn’t doing the job because he believes in what he does, or because of his values, but out of simple self-interest.  It is said that he could earn much more working in a law firm, and I’m sure that is true, but he would have to actually do work there!  As far as I’m concerned he’s welcome to leave the Court and go seek employment elsewhere … were it up to me, he’d be impeached tomorrow, along with Alito and perhaps Chief Justice Roberts who has not dealt with the corruption on his Court as I think he should have.

If you’re interested, you can read the ProPublica article for additional information … and for more growls!

Don’t Be Fooled!

Long overdue headlines yesterday:

  • Supreme Court Adopts Ethics Code After Reports of Undisclosed Gifts and Travel (New York Times)
  • Supreme Court, under pressure, issues ethics code specific to justices (The Washington Post)
  • Supreme Court adopts modified ethics code after pressure from Hill Dems (Fox ‘News’)
  • The Supreme Court adopts first-ever code of ethics (NPR)
  • Under fire, US Supreme Court unveils ethics code for justices (Reuters)

About damn time, eh?  But hold on … not so fast there.  Not everything is as it seems.  Let’s hear what Robert Reich has to say about it …


Why the Supreme Court’s new ethics code is neither a code nor about ethics

It’s a pathetic attempt at pacifying the public instead of making justices accountable

Robert Reich

14 November 2023

Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced an ethics code for the justices. But the code is utterly empty. It has no enforcement mechanism and no mechanism for the public to lodge complaints of misconduct.

It’s public relations pablum.

The court effectively admitted this, saying that “the absence of a Code … has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the justices of this court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.”

Misunderstanding? I’m sorry, but the public understands quite well that the justices regard themselves as free to do whatever they wish, in terms of ethics.

In April, ProPublica documented years of undisclosed luxury travel enjoyed by Justice Clarence Thomas, including private jets and trips aboard a super-yacht courtesy of a Texas real estate magnate and conservative donor, Harlan Crow. Since then, other undisclosed gifts to Thomas have been revealed, all from powerful friends — including a motor coach, private school tuition for a grandnephew the justice was raising, and the justice’s mother’s home in an undisclosed real estate deal.

Thomas has also come under fire for failing to recuse himself from cases related to attacks on the 2020 election results — given that his wife, Virginia Thomas, worked to overturn the 2020 election results in the weeks leading up to the Capitol attack.

Other justices, including Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, have also failed to disclose their connections to wealthy people with close ties to the court. Alito did not report a 2008 trip on the private jet of Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire who later had cases before the court.

Alito defended his conduct in an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal, writing that he had “no obligation” to recuse himself from the cases involving Singer’s business, and did not have to report the travel and lodging because the jet constituted a “facility” exempt from reporting requirements. He claimed that the justices “commonly interpreted” hospitality to include accommodations and transportation for social events that did not have to be reported as gifts.

In addition to Thomas and Alito, Gorsuch did not disclose that the head of a major law firm had purchased a Colorado vacation property that he co-owned. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s staff pushed public entities hosting her to purchase her books; she failed to recuse herself from cases involving her book publisher.

The new code would have had no effect on any of these instances and will have no effect on future ethical lapses.

The new rules don’t require any changes in how the justices conduct themselves.

The new code has no system for the public to lodge complaints or for any outside review of alleged ethical violations.

In the absence of any enforcement process, the document states that Chief Justice John Roberts has directed court staff to do a review of “best practices” based on systems already in place in the lower courts. It didn’t provide a timeline for that review or what action the court might take in response.

What prompted the court to put out this piece of PR pablum now?

Probably the fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote on Thursday for issuing subpoenas to Republican megadonor Harlan Crow and conservative legal activist Leonard Leo as part of its ongoing investigation into the Supreme Court.

As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, chair of the Judiciary Committee subcommittee overseeing the federal courts, explained:

“We need to develop information about how systemic this was. This isn’t just a random gift here and a random gift there. It’s always the same individuals, the same front groups. It’s — there’s a network effect here that we need to understand. … What you have is billionaires with a demonstrated pattern of trying to influence the Supreme Court through a whole variety of groups by giving donations and participating, who are at the same time also giving enormous, massive, secret gifts to justices. Just on its face, that merits investigation. And if it happened in any other court in the United States, it would have been investigated. There would have been fact-finding, and there would have been a result and consequences. It’s only the Supreme Court that is living outside the bounds of the rules.”

The Supreme Court’s new “Code of Ethics” changes nothing. The court is still living outside the bounds of rules.

Ultimately, I blame Chief Justice John Roberts. The court’s chief justice is supposed to maintain public trust and confidence in the court, but Roberts has done everything possible to avoid a Code of Ethics with teeth. This latest pathetic attempt at pacifying the public will do little to reverse the sharp decline in public confidence in the nation’s highest court.

At his nomination hearing in September 2005, I testified against Roberts becoming the next chief justice. I had no confidence in his ability or willingness to put the public interest above the interests of individual justices. Sad to say, I’ve been proven correct.

Three’s A Crowd

In another time, another era, we would not be talking about an election that is 425 days away as if it were next month, or even next week!  Personally, I think it is unhealthy to already be focusing 90% of our political energy on an election so far out.  But then, these are different times with the very core of the nation’s principles on the ballot next year, so … it’s only going to get worse, my friends.  Today, I want to share with you Robert Reich’s latest piece about third-party candidates and the so-called “No Labels” non-party that is by design helping to burn the U.S. Constitution.


No Labels, no fables, no third-party betrayals

All Americans who believe in democracy must unite behind Joe Biden.

By Robert Reich

07 September 2023

I couldn’t sleep last night. I made the mistake of looking at a lot of voting data before bedtime and then reading some of the BS being put out by the third-party group “No Labels,” as well as by my old friend Cornel West, who’s now running for president as the Green Party candidate. It was a mistake. It’s now 2 am where I am, and I’m loaded for bear.

Let me be absolutely clear. Third-party groups such as No Labels and the Green Party are in effect front groups for Trump in 2024, and should be treated as such.

No Labels has pledged to spend $70 million to support a third-party candidate in 2024 who could easily draw enough votes from President Biden to tip the presidential election to Trump.

No Labels has already qualified as a presidential party that can run candidates on the ballot in 10 states, including in both Arizona and Florida. Already, Joe Manchin is flirting with the idea of running as a third-party presidential candidate under the No Labels banner.

If you believe that No Labels exists in order to encourage bipartisanship, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.

No Labels — which claims to be a centrist organization — will not reveal its donors, one of whom is reportedly the conservative megadonor Harlan Crow. Politico reports that No Labels has brought on a major Trump donor as an adviser in the pivotal battleground state of Florida.

But whatever it says it aims to be, No Labels will help Trump.

So will every other third party claiming to be in the “center” or on the “left” — including the Green Party, which is already on the ballot in the two key swing states of Michigan and Wisconsin and whose most likely candidate for president is Cornel West. And the People’s Party, especially if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. becomes its nominee.

The reason they’re all front groups for Donald Trump is that the upcoming 2024 election is likely to be nail-bitingly close even as a two-way race between Trump and Biden.

The good news is that Trump loyalists don’t represent a majority of the electorate — which is why Trump has lost the popular vote in both his presidential runs and did not top 47 percent in either.

So, as long as the anti-Trump vote is unified behind Biden, Trump cannot win, as Biden demonstrated in 2020.

But if a third-party candidate takes even a small part of the anti-Trump vote away from Biden, Trump is likely to be returned to the White House.

Consider the five states most likely to decide the 2024 election in the Electoral College — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In 2016, Trump narrowly won each of them, giving him the presidency. In 2020, these five states narrowly tipped in the other direction, giving Biden the presidency.

Biden’s razor-thin margins in these five states in 2020 came from a massive anti-Trump vote.

In all of these states, at least 1 in 3 Biden voters said they voted mainly against Trump. In Wisconsin (where the Green Party has already secured a spot on the 2024 ballot), 38 percent of Biden voters said they voted mainly against Trump. In Arizona (where No Labels has already secured a spot on the 2024 ballot), 45 percent of Biden voters said they voted mainly against Trump.

Biden has no margin for error. Even a small drop-off from his 2020 anti-Trump vote would make him vulnerable.

Just 44,000 votes out of more than 10 million cast in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin — less than half of 1 percent — were the difference between the Biden presidency and a tie in the Electoral College that would have thrown the election to the House of Representatives, and hence to Trump.

If candidates from No Labels, the Green Party, and the People’s Party peel off just 15 percent of the anti-Trump vote from Biden, and Trump’s base stays with him, Trump would win all five swing states comfortably and return to the Oval Office.

These third parties are already putting out rubbish about “voting your conscience” and “giving the people a real choice.” It’s cynical propaganda designed to obscure the reality that any anti-Trump votes they pull away from Biden will only help ensure a Trump victory.

If No Labels were a legitimate third party rather than a Trump front, it would withdraw from all ballots for the 2024 election. If Cornel West and the Green Party had positive intentions, they would do the same. The rest of us must spread the word about the dangers of these third parties.

If Trump wins the GOP nomination for president, as seems highly likely despite (or because of) his coming trials, all Americans who believe in democracy must unite behind Joe Biden — to ensure that Trump, in the words of then-Rep. Liz Cheney, “never again gets anywhere near the Oval Office.”

Please spread the word. Now.

“No Labels” Is Up to No Good!

Things are not always what they seem, are they? When the magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat or a quarter out of his ear at a magic show, we laugh … it’s all in good fun. But when a candidate for office or a political organization start playing shell games, the humour is gone, for it is our very lives at stake. Our friend Annie has a cautionary warning about a political organization that on the surface, seems to support centrist, bi-partisan policies and politics, but when you pull back the curtain, there is much more to it than first thought. It rather reminds me of what was behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz. Thank you, Annie, for this very timely warning … forewarned is forearmed.

annieasksyou...

Photo by Leeloo Thefirst on Pexels.com

NOTE: I have determined to focus my blog posts on positive developments whenever possible. But frankly, the story I’m writing about here worries me a great deal.

It also infuriates me. There may be many folks with good intentions involved, but at the heart of this effort appear to be greed, deception, and a flamboyant disinterest/carelessness about the fate of America.

If you’re asked to participate in any efforts with the “No Labels” name attached—such as signing a petition to get their organization, which they refer to as a nonprofit, on the ballot in your state—please consider carefully before agreeing.

The “No Labels” rhetoric is designed to appeal to patriotic Americans who feel themselves without a political home. No Labels claims to be a “moderate, centrist” group. I realize that’s an attractive stance for many people these days.

But “No Labels” doesn’t mean…

View original post 1,951 more words

A Double Standard, Or Just A Different Time?

There are rules, and then there are rules.  Sometimes, the rules can be confusing because of the way in which they are applied.  Such as the rules about acceptance and disclosure of gifts by public servants.  This is a follow up to yesterday’s post by Robert Reich about the millions in undisclosed ‘gifts’ that Justice Clarence Thomas received from a Republican donor over the years … I think you’ll find a somewhat double standard here … I wonder why?  Have the times changed so much in 30 years?  Has corruption become just a normal part of doing government business?  Has integrity left the room?  Will it ever return?


P.S.: When I had to send a personal check to Bill Gates, for lunch

Robert Reich

14 April 2023

Clarence Thomas’s bizarre claim that he failed to disclose the lavish gifts he received from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow because he didn’t believe he had to brought me back to a day 30 years ago when Bill Gates asked me to lunch.

I was secretary of labor then. Gates was the CEO of Microsoft, and the richest person in America.

Curious and flattered, I accepted his invitation.

I don’t recall much about the lunch except that it was at an expensive restaurant, and everything Gates said struck me as rather predictable.

When I returned to my office, the Labor Department’s chief lawyer stopped by to ask if I had enjoyed the lunch, and if I had paid for my portion. I was embarrassed to tell him that paying had never occurred to me. I was having lunch with Bill Gates, for crying out loud.

The chief lawyer patiently explained that federal law barred employees of the executive branch from accepting gifts whose value exceeded $50 — which would include my extravagant lunch with Bill Gates. “There are exceptions,” he said, “but my advice is that you send Gates a check for the value of your lunch.”

“Really?” I asked, incredulously. “I don’t even know how much it cost!”

He whipped out a piece of paper. “We phoned his office, and you owe him $120.”

“But…” I stammered.

“Oh, and be sure to make it a personal check,” he said. “I can have it delivered to his hotel this afternoon. For safety sake, add $15 to cover the cost of delivery.”

So I did what the Labor Department’s chief lawyer advised I do. I made out a check to Bill Gates for $135.00.

I believe, but cannot be sure (this was 30 years ago), that he cashed it.

Another Chink In The Armour Of Democracy

One of several major stories in the U.S. news over the past week or so is that of Justice Clarence Thomas and the ProPublica report of the millions of dollars in free vacations, travel, and other gifts he received from businessman Harlan Crow, but failed to report.  Not to beat a dead horse, but I think that Robert Reich’s views on this are spot on and deserve wide coverage.  In my view, Justice Thomas has severely discredited the impartiality of the highest court in the nation and if trust is ever to be restored, he must be impeached.


How to become one of Clarence and Ginni’s dearest friends

Who is he kidding?

Robert Reich

13 April 2023

After ProPublica reported that for more than two decades, Clarence Thomas has been taking lavish vacations, super-yacht trips, and rides on a private jet, all courtesy of GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, Thomas issued a statement last Friday — explaining that the reason he hadn’t disclosed any of this was that Crow and his wife are among Clarence and Ginni Thomases’ “dearest friends” and that “as friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them.”

Thomas further explained that he thought he didn’t need to report these gifts on annual disclosure forms because when he first joined the court he was told that “personal hospitality from close personal friends” need not be reported.

This is dangerous rubbish. Thomas has been a member of the Supreme Court since October 1991, which means he met his “close personal friend” Harlan Crow after Thomas was already a justice. And Thomas has been accepting Crow’s sumptuous hospitality almost from that start. Which is exactly the problem.

And it’s why disclosure of such lavish gifts isn’t enough to guard the integrity of the court. In this age of billionaires, the law should be: No such gifts!

I knew Clarence Thomas when he was 23 years old. We never became close personal friends. (Although I made every effort to be friendly toward him at Yale Law School, he always responded to my overtures with an angry scowl. It is of course possible that I was obnoxiously friendly, but I don’t recall him speaking to any of our classmates. It’s also possible that Thomas became warmer and friendlier over the years.)

But once someone becomes a justice of the Supreme Court (or a member of Congress, or a president or governor), friendship often takes on a different meaning. The friendships of powerful people typically involve transactions replete with ulterior motive. This is especially true if the person on the other side of the friendship happens to be a multi-billionaire who pours tens of millions of dollars into political campaigns.

No billionaire’s gift to the powerful comes without strings; Crow’s to Clarence and Ginni has allowed Crow to crow that he hangs out with them — bragging rights that give Crow even more influence among those who’d like to have influence in high places. Not incidentally, Crow has links to groups that file amicus briefs before the Supreme Court.

I have seen it again and again in Washington. Money and influence are traded over fancy dinners, gatherings at luxury resorts, Georgetown soirees, and sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom. From these transactions bloom so-called “friendships” in which the line between personal chumminess and powerful quid pro quo dissolves into mutual advantage — and corruption.

It should be noted that since he has served on the Supreme Court, Thomas has been one of the chief enablers of such corruption. In 2010, he supported the court’s notorious Citizens United ruling, which removed limits on corporate spending on politics. But Thomas went even further, issuing a concurring opinion insisting that the court overturn all rules that require transparency in political spending: “This court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements,” he wrote. At the same time, Ginni Thomas was running a conservative nonprofit to fight the “tyranny” of President Obama — a nonprofit that directly benefited from the Citizens United ruling.

For a justice of the Supreme Court who would like to enjoy a lifestyle far above what his relatively meager salary can sustain, and for a justice’s wife intent on wielding even more political clout than her own marital circumstance provides — both in an era when unprecedented wealth has accumulated at the top — the choice of whom to befriend is not a random act. It drips with corruption.

Large gifts to Supreme Court justices give the appearance if not the reality of corruption. No disclosure can remove the taint. And friendship has nothing to do with it (not even if the friend has a thing for collecting Nazi memorabilia).


A Fair And Honest Justice? I Think NOT!

The teaser at the start of Jonathan V. Last’s newsletter this morning was: “Guess which Supreme Court justice has lavish travel paid for by a billionaire but never discloses it?”  Without hesitation, my first guess was Justice Clarence Thomas, and guess what?  I was right!  But even so, my jaw dropped when I read the extent to which Justice Thomas has been the recipient of lavish gifts and travel that he failed to report.  Read it for yourself … and I highly recommend the Pro Publica article he references, as well!


From The Triad

Jonathan V. Last

Sugar Daddy

There is no more important piece for you to read today than this Pro Publica investigation into Justice Clarence Thomas’s relationship with billionaire Harlan Crow:

IN LATE JUNE 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.

 If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn’t necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.

For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.

The extent and frequency of Crow’s apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.

Read the whole thing.

Every last word.

The least important aspect of this story is the hypocrisy. But we’re going to dwell on it for a moment anyway. Because I can’t stop myself.

Here’s another line from the story:

In Thomas’ public appearances over the years, he has presented himself as an everyman with modest tastes.

“I don’t have any problem with going to Europe, but I prefer the United States, and I prefer seeing the regular parts of the United States,” Thomas said in a recent interview for a documentary about his life, which Crow helped finance.

“I prefer the RV parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. There’s something normal to me about it,” Thomas said. “I come from regular stock, and I prefer that — I prefer being around that.”

Who am I to doubt Justice Thomas. I’m certain he does prefer RV parks and Walmart parking lots to pretentious settings like this one:

CROW’S PRIVATE lakeside resort, Camp Topridge, sits in a remote corner of the Adirondacks in upstate New York. Closed off from the public by ornate wooden gates, the 105-acre property, once the summer retreat of the same heiress who built Mar-a-Lago, features an artificial waterfall and a great hall where Crow’s guests are served meals prepared by private chefs. Inside, there’s clear evidence of Crow and Thomas’ relationship: a painting of the two men at the resort, sitting outdoors smoking cigars alongside conservative political operatives. A statue of a Native American man, arms outstretched, stands at the center of the image . . .

I admire Thomas’s willingness to endure such opulence just to put his friend, Harlan, at ease. Because even though Justice Thomas would surely prefer a Walmart parking lot, Harlan clearly would not feel comfortable in such environs. And so Justice Thomas makes—routinely— the kind of sacrifice that true friends make for one another.

A man hath no greater love than this: That he lay down by an artificial waterfall at a private resort for his friends.

Harlan Crow himself is an interesting fellow. For instance, like many of the ultra rich, he inherited much of his wealth.

Also, here he is giving an interview to Harvard Business School’s Dallas club in which he offers some advice to his younger self:

RH: What advice would you give your 35-year-old younger self?

HC: It’s not as hard as you think.

No shit.

Look, I shouldn’t poke fun. One of the downsides to immense wealth is that it robs a man of the capacity for self-awareness.

I’m sorry: There’s more.

Crow also bankrolled a group that paid Justice Thomas’s wife a six-figure salary:

Over the years, some details of Crow’s relationship with the Thomases have emerged. In 2011, The New York Times reported on Crow’s generosity toward the justice. That same year, Politico revealed that Crow had given half a million dollars to a Tea Party group founded by Ginni Thomas, which also paid her a $120,000 salary.

We’ve talked about Ginni Thomas before. I’m sure sure this donation was purely because he believed in the genius of her vision.

All of that is fluff, though. The real story here is that the Supreme Court has rules about financial disclosures.

Thomas didn’t report any of the trips ProPublica identified on his annual financial disclosures. Ethics experts said the law clearly requires disclosure for private jet flights and Thomas appears to have violated it.

Justices are supposed to disclose gifts worth more than $415. Just Thomas appears to have used Harlan Crow’s private jet not just for vacations, but almost like a taxi, even using it for a jaunt from Washington to New Haven.

But don’t worry. I’m sure there will be serious repercussions.