Oh Look! Another Clarence Thomas Ethics Scandal!

//

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Clarence and Ginni Thomas are a veritable conservative power couple. He’s a Supreme Court justice boldly re-writing established precedent to shape the country to his proclivities. She’s a far-right operative that has her hands in the pots of all the hot-button issues. And that’s caused some problems for Clarence, what with justices and the appearance of impropriety and all that.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Enable lazy loading. googletag.pubads().enableLazyLoad({ renderMarginPercent: 150, mobileScaling: 2 }); // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-top-300x250" ); googletag.enableServices(); });

Like we know Ginni was working harder than Kris Jenner after Donald Trump lost the 2020 election — the January 6th committee even wants to talk to her about it. But despite her involvement, Clarence Thomas went on to hear a case about the January 6th committee — and shockingly! — he was the lone dissent when the Court rejected Trump’s efforts to block the release of presidential records to the committee. Hmmm… sus.

Sponsored Building a Tax Mobility Compliance Program for a Global Workforce Show clients how to approach employee tax mobility, equity compensation, and related issues when managing a global workforce. From Morgan Stanley At Work and Above The Law

But despite the repeated calls for recusals or resignation, well, the Supreme Court doesn’t actually *have* an ethical code they’re bound to, so… shrug emoji.

Don’t worry, there’s another ethical lapse making news.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Enable lazy loading. googletag.pubads().enableLazyLoad({ renderMarginPercent: 150, mobileScaling: 2 }); // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-middle-300x250" ); googletag.enableServices(); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Enable lazy loading. googletag.pubads().enableLazyLoad({ renderMarginPercent: 150, mobileScaling: 2 }); // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-storycontent-440x100" ); googletag.enableServices(); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Enable lazy loading. googletag.pubads().enableLazyLoad({ renderMarginPercent: 150, mobileScaling: 2 }); // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-in-story-youtube-1x1" ); googletag.enableServices(); });

As reported by the Los Angeles Times:

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation’s IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled “none” where “spousal noninvestment income” would be disclosed.

Sponsored Sponsored 6 Creative Ways Legal Document Automation Drives Greater Efficiences Because so much of legal work begins and ends with documents, the best way to immediately benefit from workflow automation is through legal document automation. From NetDocuments Sponsored Dinners With Ruth Celebrated NPR correspondent Nina Totenberg delivers an extraordinary memoir of her personal successes, struggles, and life-affirming relationships, including her beautiful friendship of nearly fifty years… From NPR correspondent Nina Totenberg Sponsored Fallen Out Of Love With The Law? Here’s One Way To Get Your Mojo Back Taking back control and boosting your career is more straightforward than you think. From Peerpoint Sponsored 6 Low-Hanging Ways To Raise Your Bottom Line 10 minutes per profitability tip? Not bad! Join us and say goodbye to wasted time and money. From Rocket Matter and Above The Law

Ginni was also active in Liberty Central in 2009, and Common Cause believes she was paid an unknown salary that year. …And Clarence Thomas also recorded spousal income that year as “none.”

Tisk, tisk.

Stephen Gillers, a professor at NYU School of Law, took a harsh view of the omission, saying, “It wasn’t a miscalculation; he simply omitted his wife’s source of income for six years, which is a rather dramatic omission. It could not have been an oversight.” But, again, without any ethics code for the Supreme Court, and with less than 60 Democratic senators, all that amounts to a hill of beans.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Enable lazy loading. googletag.pubads().enableLazyLoad({ renderMarginPercent: 150, mobileScaling: 2 }); // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-bottom-300x250" ); googletag.enableServices(); });

While it’s never a *good* time for a scandal, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is in the toilet. And this kind of ethical lapse reinforces all of the negative connotations the public has about the Court.

Sponsored Sponsored Building a Tax Mobility Compliance Program for a Global Workforce Show clients how to approach employee tax mobility, equity compensation, and related issues when managing a global workforce. From Morgan Stanley At Work and Above The Law Sponsored 6 Low-Hanging Ways To Raise Your Bottom Line 10 minutes per profitability tip? Not bad! Join us and say goodbye to wasted time and money. From Rocket Matter and Above The Law

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Topics

Clarence Thomas, Courts, Ginni Thomas, Judicial Ethics, Supreme Court