Your cart is currently empty!
Tag: Clarence
Judicial body won’t refer Clarence Thomas to Justice Department over ethics lapses
A judicial organization that sets national policy for federal courts has rejected a request from two Democratic lawmakers to refer Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the Justice Department over free travel and gifts from wealthy benefactors that were largely omitted from his financial disclosure forms.
The group, the Judicial Conference, sent identical letters Thursday to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who chairs the Judiciary subcommittee on federal courts, and Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., the ranking member of the Judiciary subcommittee on courts, who asked it in 2023 to refer Thomas to the attorney general for investigation following a ProPublica report on free travel and gifts to Thomas by billionaire Harlan Crow and others.
Judicial Conference Secretary Robert J. Conrad Jr. said Thomas had filed amended financial disclosures “that address several issues identified in your letter” and argued that there is legal uncertainty over whether the Judicial Conference has the authority to refer complaints about Supreme Court justices.
“Because the Judicial Conference does not superintend the Supreme Court and because any effort to grant the Conference such authority would raise serious constitutional questions, one would expect Congress at a minimum to state any such directive clearly. But no such express directive appears in this provision,” Conrad said.
He rejected a similar request Thursday from Citizens for Renewing America President Russ Vought, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Office of Management and Budget, who filed an ethics complaint against Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson over allegations that she failed to disclose details about income from her husband’s medical malpractice consulting.
Conrad said that both justices had amended their financial disclosures and that they have agreed to follow guidance issued to other federal judges.
Whitehouse criticized Conrad’s response, saying in a statement that it “ultimately doesn’t address the only real question the Judicial Conference should’ve been focused on for the nearly two years it spent on this matter: Is there reasonable cause to believe that Justice Thomas willfully broke the disclosure law?”
“By all appearances, the judicial branch is shirking its statutory duty to hold a Supreme Court justice accountable for ethics violations,” Whitehouse added.
Johnson criticized the Judicial Conference, saying in a statement Friday that the letter “in effect exempts Supreme Court justices from the financial reporting requirements that all other federal court judges are bound by law to follow.”
He also pressed for the passage of the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, which he said includes an enforcement mechanism and holds justices to the same rules followed by lower court judges. That legislation was blocked by Senate Republicans last year.
Elliot S. Berke, an attorney for Thomas, has said his client “has fully complied with the new disclosure requirement” after guidance issued in 2023 specified that a reporting exemption for personal hospitality gifts did not apply to gifts of transportation and at commercial properties.
Rachel Cauley, a spokesperson for Citizens for Renewing America, a conservative social welfare group, argued after the Judicial Conference’s response that liberal justices are “not following” the ethics disclosure rules. She highlighted her group’s effort to draw attention to the issue, saying in a statement that “a think tank needs to file a complaint to get it covered and affect change.”
Whitehouse and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., made a direct plea to the Justice Department in July to criminally investigate whether Thomas violated federal ethics and tax laws. No such investigations have been announced.
The Supreme Court formally adopted a new ethics code in 2023, but more than a year later questions have lingered over its enforcement.
Recently, the judicial body handling ethics complaints against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has announced that they will not be referring him to the Justice Department for further investigation. Despite numerous allegations of ethics lapses and conflicts of interest, the body has decided that there is not enough evidence to warrant a formal referral.This decision has sparked outrage among many who believe that Thomas has long been able to skirt accountability for his actions. Critics argue that his close ties to conservative donors and organizations, as well as his wife’s work as a political activist, raise serious questions about his impartiality on the bench.
The lack of consequences for Thomas also highlights the broader issue of accountability within the judiciary. With lifetime appointments and limited oversight, Supreme Court justices often operate with little fear of repercussions for their actions.
As calls for reform within the judiciary continue to grow, the decision not to refer Clarence Thomas to the Justice Department serves as a stark reminder of the challenges in holding powerful judges accountable for their ethics lapses.
Tags:
judicial body, Clarence Thomas, ethics lapses, Justice Department, referral, Supreme Court, ethics investigation, misconduct allegations, federal judge, legal ethics, judicial misconduct, Supreme Court justice, ethics violations, judicial ethics, ethics review
#Judicial #body #wont #refer #Clarence #Thomas #Justice #Department #ethics #lapses
How Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas got away with it.
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
The past two years have brought a flood of shocking revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas’ acceptance of lavish gifts, loans, and vacations from his billionaire buddies. But the justice has faced remarkably little accountability for his flagrant violations of federal ethics laws: Despite multiple congressional probes into his misconduct, he still faces no legal or institutional repercussions from any branch of government. On this week’s Slate Plus bonus episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed Thomas’ latest escape from liability, as yet another judicial enforcement body declined to take any action against him. A preview of their conversation, below, has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Dahlia Lithwick: A little bit of late-breaking news this week is that the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary’s top policymaking body, will not be referring Justice Clarence Thomas to the Department of Justice for investigation over massive amounts of free travel and gifts from his wealthy friends and benefactors and supporters—gifts that were omitted from his financial disclosure forms. Judicial Conference Secretary Robert J. Conrad Jr. sent letters to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Hank Johnson refusing the referral they requested and saying that Thomas’ amended disclosure forms “address several issues identified in your letter.” They also make some kind of jurisdictional claim that they don’t have the authority to do anything.
I guess this is the end of the road, Mark, for any hope that anything will ever happen to correct for literally decades of unreported travel and loot and luxury accommodations and other perks that Clarence Thomas has received and never disclosed as required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.
Mark Joseph Stern: Let’s be clear about what the Judicial Conference is doing here: It’s gutting the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, a federal statute that we had thought was legitimate and enforceable until now. This statute expressly gives the Judicial Conference the power to make these referrals over alleged law-breaking among federal judges to the Justice Department for investigation and potential penalties. As Gabe Roth at Fix the Court has pointed out, the law was actually enacted shortly after two justices were found to have accepted outside income that was allegedly unethical. So it was very clearly Congress’ intent to elevate the standards for all judges, and to ensure that the nine justices were held to the same standard.
And the standards here are so simple! All we’re talking about is disclosures! The law does not stop justices from accepting gifts; it just says that they have to disclose those gifts to the public, and Clarence Thomas wouldn’t even do that. Now the Judicial Conference has said it doesn’t think it has the power to make a referral to the Justice Department over his lapse, even though Congress explicitly gave it this power in the statute. Conrad wrote that “any effort to grant the Conference such authority would raise serious constitutional questions.” This strikes me as the Judicial Conference doing a lot of what the Supreme Court did in the Trump immunity case—to say, “well these guys are so powerful and so important that their conduct must be assumed to be unpunishable and above the law.”
Incredibly, the Judicial Conference also alleges that Clarence Thomas is now following the law. Conrad’s letter says: “Justice Thomas has filed amended financial disclosure statements that address several issues identified in your letter. In addition, he has agreed to follow the relevant guidance issued to other federal judges, which would include the guidance mentioned above. We have no reason to believe he has done anything less.” This is days after the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report proving that Clarence Thomas has, despite ample opportunity to correct his filings, still omitted free trips and travel from his amended disclosures. He is still violating the statute to conceal free trips that he should have disclosed!
Finally, there is no reasonable argument, as Conrad suggests, that Thomas ever had a right to exclude so many of these gifts from disclosure. Even if we accept a really broad reading of the exemption for “personal hospitality,” he still didn’t disclose the fancy RV gift that was mysteriously paid off. He didn’t disclose private tuition for his grand-nephew. He didn’t disclose the property deals that Harlan Crow undertook for the Thomas family. All of that should have been disclosed. All of it wasn’t. The justice broke the law. Now the Judicial Conference is saying, first, that it isn’t even sure if he did break the law, and second, that there’s nothing it can do about it if he did. I think the Judicial Conference is just bending the knee to the Supreme Court. It’s dismissing the power Congress sought to give it, the power to police the outer bounds of judicial behavior, saying there are no repercussions or ramifications for a justice who violates the law. The justices are now all on notice that if they continue to flout this federal statute, then they can get off scot-free.
In the sad trombonist part of it all, I guess we have to end on the note that this is not just the end of the line in terms of this effort by Sen. Whitehouse and Rep. Johnson, who have been trying to construct some structure of rules by which the court would answer to someone about something. It’s also really the end of the line because, realistically, we know the judiciary is not going to police itself. We’ve known that for a long time. But we also know the incoming Trump Department of Justice is not going to police Clarence Thomas. I guess this is the end of the line in terms of anybody holding the high court to account.
Yes, and I just want to look at the bigger picture specifically with Clarence Thomas. A cornerstone of Thomas’ jurisprudence is his dismantlement of campaign finance law. He thinks that basically all campaign finance restrictions violate the First Amendment, and he has relentlessly fought to give billionaires a First Amendment right to buy elections. Elon Musk, in this most recent election, took great advantage of the massive gaps in campaign finance law that Thomas has created, through decisions like Citizens United and McCutcheon v. FEC, to buy the election for Donald Trump.
When Trump was being outraised by Kamala Harris—when Harris was drowning in cash and Trump was drying up with small donors—Elon Musk stepped in and asserted his rights under Clarence Thomas’ jurisprudence to spend more than $250 million bailing out Trump and buying this election for him. Because Musk did that, Donald Trump is about to become president. Pam Bondi is about to become attorney general. And there is no serious argument that the Trump administration is going to investigate Clarence Thomas on its own initiative, even if it did get a referral. No matter what, the Trump administration is going to shield Clarence Thomas from any kind of fallout.
I think that shows the way Thomas and Musk and Trump—and everyone who has bought into this vision of a First Amendment–based right to buy elections—has created an oligarchy that entrenches itself, keeps itself in power, and ensures that its own privileges and benefits are never diminished or taken away. Thomas can keep taking free megayacht trips. He can keep going on private planes. He can even refuse to disclose all of it! We might whine about it, but nothing bad will happen to him, because his man is in the Oval Office. He’s got a protector who will ensure that Clarence Thomas gets to do whatever Clarence Thomas wants to do.
![]()
Sign up for Slate’s evening newsletter.
How Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Got Away with ItSupreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been at the center of controversy throughout his career on the bench. From allegations of sexual misconduct to conflicts of interest, Thomas has managed to navigate these scandals and maintain his position on the highest court in the land. So how did he get away with it?
One of the key reasons Thomas has been able to escape consequences for his actions is his steadfast refusal to engage with the media and public scrutiny. Unlike other justices who have faced scandals, Thomas has largely remained silent and avoided interviews or public statements. This strategy has shielded him from additional criticism and allowed the controversies to fade from the public eye.
Additionally, Thomas has been able to rely on the support of conservative allies and supporters. Despite the allegations against him, Thomas has maintained a strong base of support among conservative groups and individuals who have defended him at every turn. This network of supporters has helped insulate Thomas from accountability and provided him with a platform to continue his work on the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, Thomas has benefited from the nature of the Supreme Court itself. Justices are appointed for life and can only be removed through impeachment, a process that is rare and difficult to achieve. This has provided Thomas with a level of job security that has allowed him to weather the storms of controversy that have surrounded him.
In the end, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has managed to escape consequences for his actions through a combination of strategic silence, strong support from conservative allies, and the unique nature of his position on the Supreme Court. Whether or not this will continue to be the case remains to be seen, but for now, Thomas remains one of the most controversial and enigmatic figures on the highest court in the land.
Tags:
- Clarence Thomas scandal
- Supreme Court controversy
- Clarence Thomas allegations
- Justice Clarence Thomas scandal
- Clarence Thomas corruption
- Supreme Court Justice scandal
- Clarence Thomas misconduct
- Supreme Court Justice controversy
- Clarence Thomas ethics issue
- Supreme Court Justice scandal cover-up
#Supreme #Court #Justice #Clarence #Thomas
Federal courts won’t refer Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to attorney general over ethics
WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal courts will not refer allegations that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas may have violated ethics laws to the Justice Department, the judiciary’s policymaking body said Thursday.
Thomas has agreed to follow updated requirements on reporting trips and gifts, including clearer guidelines on hospitality from friends, the U.S. Judicial Conference wrote to Democratic senators who had called for an investigation into undisclosed acceptance of luxury trips.
Thomas has previously said he wasn’t required to disclose the many trips he and his wife took that were paid for by wealthy benefactors like Republican megadonor Harlan Crow because they are close personal friends. The court didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.
The Supreme Court adopted its first code of ethics in 2023 in the face of sustained criticism, though the new code still lacks a means of enforcement.
It’s unclear whether the law allows the U.S. Judicial Conference to make a criminal referral regarding a Supreme Court justice, U.S. District Judge Robert Conrad wrote. He serves as secretary for the conference, which sets policy for the federal court system and is led by Chief Justice John Roberts.
A referral in this case isn’t necessary, Conrad said, because two Democratic senators called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel over the summer. No such appointment has been publicly made.
The group Fix the Court said the financial disclosure law is clear and should apply to justices. “The Conference’s letters further underscore the need for Congress to create a new and transparent mechanism to investigate the justices for ethics violations since the Conference is unwilling to act upon the one method we had presumed existed to do that,” Executive Director Gabe Roth said in a statement.
Conrad also sent a similar response to a separate complaint from a conservative legal group, the Center for Renewing America, in regard to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s reports on the source of her husband’s consulting income. Jackson has since amended her disclosures and also agreed to updated reporting requirements, Conrad wrote.
The Federal courts have decided not to refer Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the attorney general over ethics concerns. Despite calls for an investigation into Justice Thomas’ potential conflicts of interest and alleged failure to report his wife’s income, the courts have deemed that there is insufficient evidence to warrant further action.This decision comes after years of speculation and controversy surrounding Justice Thomas’ judicial conduct. Critics have accused him of potential bias in cases involving his wife’s political activities and financial interests. However, Justice Thomas has denied any wrongdoing and maintains that he has always acted in accordance with ethical standards.
While some may be disappointed by the courts’ decision not to pursue further action against Justice Thomas, others see it as a validation of his innocence. Regardless of where one stands on the issue, it is clear that the debate over Justice Thomas’ ethics will continue to be a contentious and divisive topic in the legal community.
Tags:
- Federal courts
- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
- Ethics investigation
- Attorney General referral
- Judicial ethics
- Supreme Court ethics
- Clarence Thomas investigation
- Legal ethics
- Judicial misconduct
- Federal court decision
#Federal #courts #wont #refer #Supreme #Court #Justice #Clarence #Thomas #attorney #general #ethics
US judicial body rejects request to refer Clarence Thomas to justice department | Clarence Thomas
A judicial policymaking body on Thursday rejected a request by Democratic lawmakers to refer the conservative US supreme court Justice Clarence Thomas to the Department of Justice to examine claims that he failed to disclose gifts and travel provided by a wealthy benefactor.
The secretary to the US judicial conference, the federal judiciary’s top policymaking body, pointed at amendments Thomas had made to his annual financial disclosure reports for the decision.
In a separate letter, the conference declined to refer liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the justice department based on claims by a conservative group that she failed to disclose the source of her husband’s consulting income. Jackson has since amended her disclosures, that letter noted.
Democratic lawmakers Sheldon Whitehouse, a senator from Rhode Island, and Hank Johnson, a congressman from Georgia, had asked the conference to refer Thomas to the department after reporting from ProPublica in April 2023 revealed that Thomas had not reported being treated to luxury trips by wealthy Texas businessman and Republican donor Harlan Crow.
Their letter argued that a referral to the justice department was warranted because Thomas had willfully failed to comply with the financial disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.
Thomas had said he had been advised he did not have to report that type of “personal hospitality” and said he would do so going forward starting with his 2022 annual report, which was filed in August 2023.
Robert Conrad, a US district judge, who heads the judiciary’s administrative arm and acts as the judicial conference’s secretary, wrote that the judiciary had been busy since 2023 updating its financial disclosure requirements and making clear when the personal hospitality exemption does not apply.
He said Thomas had filed amended financial disclosure reports since the issues first emerged and that he has agreed to follow the relevant guidance issued to other federal judges, including the new policies.
“We have no reason to believe he has done anything less,” Conrad wrote.
In declining to make a referral to the justice department, Conrad cited “constitutional questions” about whether the judicial conference could do so that require further study.
He also said the lawmakers’ request was mooted when Whitehouse, with another senator, wrote directly to the attorney general, Merrick Garland, asking him to appoint a special counsel to investigate the same matters.
In a recent decision, the US judicial body has rejected a request to refer Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the Justice Department for investigation. This decision comes after allegations of misconduct and potential conflicts of interest surrounding Justice Thomas have surfaced in recent months.The request to refer Justice Thomas to the Justice Department was made by a group of legal scholars and ethics experts who raised concerns about his relationship with conservative activist groups and his wife’s involvement in right-wing causes. They argued that Justice Thomas may have violated ethical standards and should be investigated for potential violations.
However, the US judicial body dismissed the request, stating that there was insufficient evidence to warrant further action. The decision has sparked outrage among critics who believe that Justice Thomas should be held accountable for any potential wrongdoing.
Justice Thomas has faced scrutiny in the past for his controversial rulings and close ties to conservative groups. Despite the rejection of the request for investigation, the controversy surrounding Justice Thomas is likely to continue as questions about his impartiality and ethics persist.
Stay tuned for further developments on this story as it continues to unfold.
Tags:
- US judicial body
- Clarence Thomas
- Justice Department
- Clarence Thomas allegations
- US Supreme Court
- Clarence Thomas controversy
- Judicial ethics
- Legal news
- SCOTUS
- Clarence Thomas investigation
#judicial #body #rejects #request #refer #Clarence #Thomas #justice #department #Clarence #Thomas
![Intruder In The Dust [Remaster] by MGM by Clarence Brown](https://ziontechgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/51DnnSAdb6L.jpg)
Intruder In The Dust [Remaster] by MGM by Clarence Brown
Price: $3.99
(as of Dec 21,2024 15:33:38 UTC – Details)
Media Format : NTSC, DVD
ASIN : B01GWCPR98
Intruder In the Dust [Remaster] by MGM: A Classic Tale of Justice and RedemptionGet ready to experience the timeless tale of justice and redemption in the remastered version of Intruder In the Dust by MGM, directed by Clarence Brown. This gripping film follows the story of Lucas Beauchamp, a black man wrongly accused of murder in a small Southern town.
As tensions rise and racial prejudices come to light, a young white boy named Chick Mallison takes it upon himself to prove Lucas’ innocence. Together with his uncle, lawyer John Stevens, they embark on a journey to uncover the truth and bring the real killer to justice.
With its powerful message of standing up against injustice and fighting for what is right, Intruder In the Dust remains as relevant today as it was when it was first released. The stunning remastered version by MGM brings this classic film to life in vivid detail, allowing audiences to fully immerse themselves in the heart-wrenching story.
Don’t miss your chance to witness this cinematic masterpiece in all its glory. Grab your popcorn, sit back, and prepare to be moved by the unforgettable tale of Intruder In the Dust.
#Intruder #Dust #Remaster #MGM #Clarence #Brown
Cartoon Network: Clarence – Dust Buddies (V2)
Price:$14.98– $12.99
(as of Dec 21,2024 12:01:59 UTC – Details)
Turtle Hats, Dollar Hunts, and a Money Broom Wizard! Sounds like something out of the ordinary, but it’s just another typical day for Clarence and his pals Sumo and Jeff. Clarence Vol. 2 releases on DVD with twelve mischievous – not to mention hilarious – episodes from the series critically acclaimed first season.
Bonus Content:
Pilot Episode
Product Dimensions : 0.7 x 7.5 x 5.4 inches; 2.72 ounces
Item model number : 1000564337
Director : Nelson Boles, Raymie Muzquiz
Media Format : Multiple Formats, NTSC, Animated, Color
Run time : 2 hours and 12 minutes
Release date : September 15, 2015
Actors : Spencer Rothbell, Skyler Page, Sean Giambrone, Katie Crown, Tom Kenny
Producers : Keith Mack, Skyler Page, Bob Boyle, Curtis LeLash, Yvette Kaplan
Studio : Warner Home Video
ASIN : B00WUI3KAM
Country of Origin : USA
Number of discs : 1
Cartoon Network: Clarence – Dust Buddies (V2)Get ready for a brand new episode of Clarence on Cartoon Network! In “Dust Buddies (V2),” Clarence and his friends embark on a hilarious adventure as they try to clean up the messiest room in the house. But when things go awry and dust bunnies start coming to life, chaos ensues.
Join Clarence, Jeff, and Sumo as they navigate through a whirlwind of laughs and mishaps in this wacky and heartwarming episode. “Dust Buddies (V2)” is sure to keep you entertained from start to finish.
Tune in to Cartoon Network to catch all the fun and excitement of Clarence – you won’t want to miss it!
#Cartoon #Network #Clarence #Dust #Buddies
