Last year’s investigation into the off-the-benches lives of the Supreme Court Justices revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas may be guilty of tax evasion and questionable ethics over decisions.
Conservative mega donors allegedly funding Thomas’ lavish lifestyle have heightened public awareness of the influence on the U.S. justice system. However, this hasn’t stopped the questionable ethics of the Supreme Court Justice.
Justice Thomas’s Controversies
Justice Thomas, who is the longest-service Supreme Court Justice and arguably the most conservative, has received yacht trips and private jet travels through conservative mega-donors throughout his time on the bench.
Some argue that taxing these “gifts” is necessary and that they also breach an understood code of morality that public servants should follow.
Turning a Blind Eye
These “donations” are nothing. Justices can accept luxurious vacations and participate in cases where a clear bias is benignly presented without the possibility of filing a formal complaint against them.
This lack of a judicial gift ban allows justices like Thomas to continue his ethically questionable decision-making process. While an investigation into tax evasion and ethics.
Justice Thomas and His Latest Controversy
Last month, members of Justice Thomas’s law clerk network sent out an email celebrating the newest addition to his team: Crystal Clanton, also known as his “nearly adopted daughter.”
After departing from the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA amidst controversy, Clanton secured the job and a new home.
Who Is Crystal Clanton?
The 29-year-old conservative organizer turned lawyer has built a close relationship with Thomas and his wife. She landed one of the most coveted jobs in the American legal profession after being accused of sending racist text messages.
Thomas and his wife have seemingly been helping Clanton find new work under the justices after she left the conservative youth organization over the allegations.
Justice Thomas Has Helped Clanton Before
This isn’t the first time that Thomas has lent a helping hand to Clanton. In 2019, Clanton enrolled at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University in Virginia under the encouragement of the Thomases.
The detailed investigation from last year, along with reports from another judge who later hired her, made it public knowledge that Justice Thomas’s influence helped Clanton receive a full-merit scholarship.
The “Blatant Favoritism” and “Nepotism” of the Hire
In what the New York Times is calling “blatant favoritism” and “nepotism,” the selection of Clanton as Justice Thomas’ clerk falls under the cloudy ethics the justice has become known for.
While Justice Thomas’s and Clanton’s friends believe that the hiring of a young woman under fire for alleged racist text reflects the justice’s sympathies, the public has landed both figures in another public controversy.
Friends Defend Justice Thomas
“Justice Thomas knows what a racist is,” Mark Paoletta, a close friend and defender of the Thomases, wrote on social media. “I will take his word and judgment any day of the week.”
Paoletta then attacked the left, adding that the justice has “survived Democrat racists in DC who have attacked him for 40 years because he does not conform to their racist demand that he must think a certain way based on color of his skin.”
The Code Doesn’t Allow Favoritism
“It seems clear that Justice Thomas acted improperly in hiring someone to whom he is so close that he describes her as something akin to a family member,” said Kathleen Clark, a legal ethics expert at Washington University in St. Louis.
Clark continued: “While this hiring probably does not violate the nepotism statutes, it is the type of ‘favoritism’ prohibited by the code.”
Supreme Court Justices Don’t Have to Follow the Code
The federal judicial code of conduct highly discourages a justice from hiring someone based on favoritism.While the code of conduct asks judges to “exercise the power of appointment fairly and only on the basis of merit,” Supreme Court Justices do not have to follow the code.
According to the Constitution, justices serve as long as they exhibit “good behavior,” or face possible impeachment and removal for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Hiring Friends and Family Is Nothing New
While the Supreme Court’s new ethics code prohibits a justice from hiring someone accused of racism and close family friends, this is nothing new.
In the early days of the Supreme Court, justices would hire their sons as law clerks to assist them in cases. Often, these law clerks would work out of the justices’ homes, creating a strong bond of familiarity.
Will Someone Put the Justices in Check?
No ethics working group, ethic counsels, or compliance officers have been hired to monitor the justices despite these scandals.
No inspector general could investigate alleged ethical violations to keep the justice system honest and fair for the people of the U.S.
