Supreme Court Justice Clarence and his wife, Ginni Thomas are a stapled conservative power couple. As a Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas has boldly re-writing established precedent to shape the country to his anti-liberal bias. Ginni Thomas a far-right operative that has her hands in the pots of all the hot-button issues, including her effort to overturn the 2020 election results to keep Donald Trump in power.
But despite her involvement in the attempted coup, 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.
Clarence Thoma’s conduct has sparked widespread backlash and repeated calls for his impeachment. Sadly, the Supreme Court doesn’t actually have an ethical code they’re bound to, so he’s able to keep his job at taxpayers’ expense while basking in a sea of scandals.
According to 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.”
Ginni Thomas also has been active in the group Liberty Central, an organization she founded to restore the “founding principles” of limited government and individual liberty. She was reportedly paid an unknown salary by the organization in 2009 and Clarence Thomas also recorded spousal income that year as “none.”
Not surprisingly, Clarence Thomas has been the lone justice to argue that laws requiring public disclosure of large political contributions are “unconstitutional.”
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.
“Federal judges are bound by law to disclose the source of spousal income,” Gillers said. “Thomas’ omission — which could be interpreted as a violation of that law — could lead to some form of penalty.”
However, he added, “the Supreme Court is “the only judicial body in the country that is not governed by a set of judicial ethical rules.”
This kind of ethical lapse reinforces all of the negative connotations the public has about the Supreme Court, and while Clarence Thomas remains a justice, its reputation will remain in the toilet.