Premium

The Never-ending High-Tech Lynching of Clarence Thomas

AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

For decades, Democrats have relentlessly targeted Clarence Thomas, a highly respected black justice on the Supreme Court. Their efforts have ranged from unfounded allegations of sexual harassment during his confirmation to more recently attacking his wife’s political affiliations. Their ultimate goal has always been the same: to stop him from serving on the land’s highest court. And when one line of attack fails, they move on to something else.

The latest effort to oust Thomas is based on the heinous crime of the justice vacationing with a personal friend, billionaire businessman Harlan Crow, over the past two decades. According to ProPublica, Thomas traveling on Crow’s private jet or his yacht or staying at Crow’s various properties are financial gifts that should be declared on financial disclosures.

Yes, the allegations are absurd, but this is what Democrats do. There is literally no low to which they won’t stoop to achieve their goal of a left-wing majority on the Supreme Court. So, queue the faux outrage and the predictable calls for Thomas’s impeachment.

Related: What Race Are Your Kidneys? The Biden Administration May Want To Know

Of course, the judiciary does have a code of conduct they must follow, and financial disclosure guidelines as well — and these specifically exclude gifts from close relatives and friends.

“The Gift Regulations include a number of exceptions to the prohibition against accepting gifts. Under Section 620.35 of the Gift Regulations, a judicial officer or employee may accept (but not solicit) a gift in the following circumstances,” the disclosure requirements explain. Four examples are given, including:

Close Relatives and Friends. A gift made by a relative or friend of the judicial officer or employee, if that person’s appearance or interest in a matter otherwise would disqualify the judicial officer or employee from participating with respect to the matter, or if the gift is made in connection with a special occasion (for example, a wedding, anniversary, or birthday) and is fairly commensurate with the occasion and the relationship. (Ethics Deskbook for United States Judges, § 9.03)

As David Harsanyi notes in The Federalist, the primary purpose of these financial disclosures is to ensure compliance with conflict-of-interest laws. The allegations against Thomas noticeably lack any hint of a conflict of interest.

“While the purpose of ProPublica’s piece is to frame all this as unethical, it offers not a single substantive instance of anything remotely approaching a conflict of interest. No cases involving Harlan Crow have ever reached Thomas,” Harsanyi wrote. “And there are no examples of Thomas having changed his positions to accommodate anyone.”

Thomas himself responded to the ridiculous accusations in a rare public 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,” Thomas said. “I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines.”

Make no mistake about it, the allegations against Thomas are ridiculous — and the left knows it. But this is what they do: they hold conservatives to standards liberals won’t hold themselves to. These latest efforts will go nowhere, of course, but they’ll keep trying.

Recommended

Trending on PJ Media Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement