June 19, 2011

I MEANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE NEW YORK TIMES’ LAME HIT PIECE ON CLARENCE THOMAS, but fellow lawprof Ann Althouse got there first. Bottom line:

The constitutional check on a Supreme Court Justice is impeachment. Picture Congress going after Thomas for playing some background role in preserving a valuable black history site.

In short: Put up or shut up, schmucks. But of course, the New York Times piece isn’t really about ethics. It’s battlespace preparation for the Supreme Court’s healthcare vote. The problem for the Times is that Thomas doesn’t care what the New York Times thinks. Which means this is more about preparing a narrative of failure for ObamaCare — It was struck down by evil corrupt conservative judges. I think they’re going to be kept quite busy constructing failure narratives over the next couple of years.

For more on the political abuse of ethics charges, well, you could write a book on the subject. And if you did, it would be evergreen. . . .

And this comment seems to sum things up: “I read the NYT piece this morning early, while still groggy, and went back for a second, slow pass to see what I was missing. Which was nothing. The Times can be slow to act on egregious matters (maybe John Edwards is a good example) that are right beneath their noses, but they will strive mightily to produce a hint of a whiff of an infraction, especially if it regards someone they simply despise.”

UPDATE: Reader Max Jones writes:

Like your previous correspondent, I read the piece on Clarence Thomas twice but on the second pass I realized the most interesting part: Harlan Crow has a serious library with lots of books! Statues of Lenin and Stalin in the backyard! Board member of the American Enterprise Institute! Maybe they are friends because they are interested in the same things?

Actually, that was the second most interesting part. The first was that Jill Abramson, author of “Strange Justice,” hasn’t even waited to become editor of the NYT to attack Thomas and attempt to lay the groundwork for recusal in some future case.

Maybe Breitbart can get to work on Strange Editor.

Indeed.