The Rot In The Supreme Court Goes Well Beyond Clarence And Ginni Thomas
Ginni Thomas
More than a decade ago, Ginni Thomas’s political activities drew scrutiny to her more public husband. More to the point, the failure of that husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, to declare decades of his wife’s income from that political activity drew attention, resulting in him revising 20 years’ worth of financial disclosure forms. That included $686,589 she earned between 2003 and 2007 from the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.
It also included her work at Liberty Central, a conservative “political education” group she co-founded in January 2009. It ceased operations in 2012. The timing of the organization’s existence is critical, because its primary mission seemed to be opposing President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Ginni Thomas wrote an article for the organization’s website in 2010 declaring that the new law was unconstitutional. Guess how hubby Clarence voted on that in the Supreme Court? That was in 2012, when one tenuous vote from Chief Justice John Roberts saved the ACA, and when Liberty Central disbanded.
Fast forward 10 years and the Supreme Court code of ethics, transparency, and disclosure that good government groups have been clamoring for has yet to be enacted, and Clarence and Ginni Thomas are in the news again because she helped try to overthrow the government. Thomas reportedly told the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection that “she has ‘never’ spoken to her husband about pending cases before the Supreme Court, calling it an ‘iron clad rule in our home.’” Maybe she also never told him about all the money she was earning from conservative groups thanks to her proximity to a Supreme Court justice.
The Thomases are the most enduringly egregious examples of why there needs to be not just an expansion of the Supreme Court, but real reforms that include finally making the court comply with a code of ethics—just like every other branch of the judiciary is compelled to do. But the Thomases are definitely not the only Supreme culprits in fishy spousal entanglements.
Meet Jesse M. Barrett and Jane Roberts, spouses to Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, and subject to a deep investigative dive by Politico
Jesse Barrett’s law firm, SouthBank Legal, just happened to expand from its South Bend, Indiana, base to Washington, D.C., a year after his wife reached the Supreme Court. His specialties are “white-collar criminal defense, internal investigations, and complex commercial litigation.” His firm of fewer than 20 lawyers has clients in “virtually every industry,” including “over 25 Fortune 500 companies and over 15 in the Fortune 100.” Chances are pretty darned good that at some point, a case involving one of those companies has come before the Supreme Court.
But we don’t know, because Barrett doesn’t have to disclose any of her husband’s clients in her disclosure documents, much less recuse herself in any of those cases. Politico reports that in her most recent disclosure, she redacted the name of her husband’s firm. On his law firm bio Barrett says he has “tried several dozen federal cases to jury verdict and has handled numerous appeals, including successful arguments in state and federal appellate courts.” So his own work, and his firm’s, could definitely come before the Supreme Court. But in those appellate courts, every judge is going to know who is arguing in front of them: a Supreme Court justice’s husband, just one wrinkle in the complicated judicial ethics/spousal debate.
In 2007, Jane Roberts quit her job as a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman to become a legal recruiter—a headhunter for law firms. John Roberts became chief justice in 2005. The other Roberts in now managing partner at the Washington, D.C., office of Macrae, a firm which exists for the purpose of placing high-powered attorneys with high-powered firms. “Macrae knows law firms,” their website boasts. “Their practices. Their geographic markets. Their cultures. Our passion built an inclusive transatlantic network to identify optimal affinities.”
It’s a lucrative business. Politico reports that “A single placement of a superstar lawyer can yield $500,000 or more for the firm.” A superstar lawyer and a high-powered law firm can only be helped by having that connection made by someone in such proximity to real power. The guy who hired Jane Roberts for her previous job admitted it freely, telling Politico that they wanted the benefits of having the wife of the chief on their staff because “her network is his network and vice versa.”
Robert does list the name of her company on his disclosures, but not the lawyers and the firms she’s worked with, “even though her clients include firms that have done Supreme Court work, according to multiple people with knowledge of the arrangements with those firms,” Politico found in its investigation of Supreme spouses and ethical conflicts.
Politico contacted both Barrett’s and Roberts’ firms, and heard back from a Supreme Court spokesperson in the case of Barrett: “Justice Barrett complies with the Ethics in Government Act in filing financial disclosure reports.” Which is the crux of the problem: She’s complying with the Swiss cheese of judicial ethics requirements, and taking full advantage of all the holes.
Pushed further on the broader question of disclosures by justices of their spouses work, the spokesperson pointed to a statement the court issued in 1993, rejecting the idea that there could be any kind of conflict of interest for a justice in a spouse’s work.
“We do not think it would serve the public interest to go beyond the requirements of the statute, and to recuse ourselves, out of an excess of caution, whenever a relative is a partner in the firm before us or acted as a lawyer at an earlier stage,” the seven justices who adopted the policy declared. “Even one unnecessary recusal impairs the functioning of the court.”
That was back when 80% of the population had at least some confidence in the Supreme Court, and 47% had a great deal/quite a lot of confidence in it. Now 68% express some degree of confidence, but just 25% say a great deal or quite a lot, and 30% of people now have very little confidence in it. That might be because the modern Supreme Court has done little to show that it’s anything but a partisan political entity intent on imposing its out-of-the-mainstream will on the American people.
The arrogance the court showed in 1993 is still on display today. Earlier this year, Barrett participated in an interview with Fred Ryan, former Politico chief executive officer and current publisher of The Washington Post. He asked about the potential for conflict with her husband’s work, and Barrett said that it wasn’t the court that had to change, but public expectations.
“But you know, I think we’re living in a time when we have a lot of couples who are both, are working, and so I think that the court and, you know, society has to adjust to expect that,” Barrett said. Asked about whether the court should adopt some guidelines to address the problem of spousal conflicts, she blew the question off. “I don’t think most of the spouses would be very happy about those guidelines,” she answered. “Certainly when I try to give my husband guidelines about what to do and not to do in the house even that doesn’t go over very well.”
That kind of arrogance and untouchability makes trusting the justices to do the right thing difficult. As does the work of the people they share their personal lives—and finances—with. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) puts it succinctly: “The ethical rot at the court continues to spread, and public faith in the court erodes along with it.”
“The questions about financial conflicts of interest are one area of concern among many. There’s also the flood of dark-money influence bearing down on the court, from the nameless donors behind judicial selection to the orchestrated flotillas of anonymous amici curiae lobbying the justices to the spate of partisan decisions handing wins to corporations and big donor interests,” Whitehouse said.
After the last term of absolutely trash decisions out of the court (with the next term promising more of the same), the other two branches of government need to get serious about fixing it. That means imposing a code of ethics and expanding the court.
Good judges are more important now than ever. In some states, judges are on the ballot this November. Tune in to The Downballot to listen to Justice Richard Bernstein talk about what being on the Michigan Supreme Court has been like, and how his re-election campaign is shaping up.
Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.
- Ginni Thomas and the Conservative Rot at the Supreme Court ›
- Secret Subsidies: Payments to farms allowed to stretch far beyond ... ›
- Ginni Thomas pressed for GOP lawmakers to protest 2020 election ... ›
- Justices shield spouses' work from potential conflict of interest ... ›
- Ginni Thomas's texts make Clarence Thomas's non-recusal look ... ›
- The Long Crusade of Clarence and Ginni Thomas - The New York ... ›
- The rot in the Supreme Court goes beyond Clarence and Ginni ... ›
Advertising
Start your day with National Memo Newsletter
Know first.
The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning
Arizona GOP Attorney General Nominee Vows To Enforce Total Abortion Ban
Abraham Hamadeh
Abraham Hamadeh said he would enforce the state's total ban on abortion at a time when most voters believe it should be legal to some degree.
The Republican seeking to be the top law enforcement officer in Arizona said that if elected, he would enforce the state's near-total ban on abortion currently on the books.
"I think we have to understand the role of the attorney general. As attorney general, I enforce the laws," Abraham Hamadeh, the GOP nominee for attorney general, said Wednesday night during a debate with Democratic attorney general nominee Kris Mayes in Phoenix. "We have to understand the role of attorney general is not to set policy. So I currently agree with [Attorney] General [Mark] Brnovich's position that the law is the law. You know, I don't want to make the law. That's the job of the Legislature."
Hamadeh, who says that the 2020 presidential election was "rigged" against former President Donald Trump and has Trump's endorsement, went on to call Mayes' vow not to enforce the ban "dangerous."
"People are electing us to actually uphold the law," Hamadeh said.
Abortion in Arizona is prohibited in all instances, except if the life of the pregnant person is at risk, after a judge in the state ruled on Sept. 23 that a Civil War-era ban from 1864, decades before Arizona became a state, could go into effect.
The ban, which was codified in 1901, states, "A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years."
The ban had been blocked by the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which affirmed the constitutional right to an abortion before fetal viability, or around 24 weeks' gestation. After the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in June that overturned Roe, an Arizona Superior Court judge ruled that the law can once again go into effect.
At the debate, Mayes criticized Hamadeh for his vow to enforce the abortion ban.
"Look, I think my opponent just admitted that he thinks it's ok to ban all abortions in the state of Arizona under a law that dates to 1864," Mayes said. "Let's remember, that was the Civil War. It was a time when women couldn't even vote and women are going to die. Women and girls are going to die because of this 1901 law and people like my opponent and [current Republican Attorney General] Mark Brnovich are forcing it on women of the state of Arizona."
Abortion has become a major issue in the 2022 midterm elections following the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe.
Polling finds voters disapprove of the Roe reversal by wide margins, and support for abortions has increased since the constitutional right to the procedure was stripped away.
In Arizona, a new poll released on Tuesday found that 91% of registered voters in the state want abortion to be legal in at least some circumstances.
Arizona will be one of the key battlegrounds in November. Republicans seek to maintain control of both the attorney general's office and the governor's mansion.
The state has grown more and more competitive in the past decade. In 2020, President Joe Biden became the first Democratic presidential nominee to win Arizona in more than 20 years, and Democrats won control of both of the state's Senate seats for the first time in almost 70 years.
The University of Virginia Center for Politics says the race is competitive and will likely mirror the outcome of Arizona's toss-up gubernatorial election, in which anti-abortion GOP nominee Kari Lake is facing off against Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs.
"Observers expect that Arizona's Trump-aligned GOP ticket will either succeed or fail in unison, given the similarities in their views and rhetoric," the Center for Politics' Louis Jacobson wrote earlier in September. "Polling may eventually show differently, but for now, we're considering this a competitive contest."
Reprinted with permission from American Independent.
- Class Divisions Harden Into Battle Lines in Arizona's Republican ... ›
- Abortion Is Shaking Up Attorneys General Races and Exposing ... ›
- Democratic Prosecutors Pledge Not to Enforce GOP Abortion ... ›
- Katie Hobbs and Kris Mayes Condemn Total Ban on Abortion ... ›
- NARAL Pro-Choice Arizona Condemns Total Abortion Ban Going ... ›
- Arizona's GOP attorney general nominee vows to enforce state's 158 ... ›
In Deranged Interview, Alex Jones Says He’s 'Hitler' and Shot Sandy Hook Victims
Alex Jones
Alex Jones, the host of the conspiracy theory show InfoWars declared that he himself is Hitler and that he shot kids to death in an interview on Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan.
When Callaghan asked Jones if he felt responsible for what happened to the Sandy Hook parents, meaning the harassment and death threats they faced after Jones told his millions of viewers that they were “crisis actors” who helped fake a 2012 school shooting in order to help the government confiscate people’s guns.
Jones responded, “I went to that school. I pulled the gun out. I shot every one of myself. I mean, I’m guilty.” Later on, he repeats over and over again, “I killed them. I’ll admit it. I did it. I’m the bad guy…. I murdered those children. I did. I did it myself.”
The December 14, 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting left 26 people dead, including 20 children ages 6 and 7. Jones was not the shooter.
“We should bow five times a day to New Haven, Connecticut for the kids that died,” Jones said, before saying that people have been hypnotized into believing that they should give their guns to George Soros, a Jewish billionaire that anti-Semites think controls left-wing politics.
“I was actually Hitler. It wasn’t actually Hitler,” Jones said. “I did it. I was in a time machine in Germany. I did all that.”
Later in the interview, Jones said, “I was being sarcastic earlier. I didn’t kill the children. I’m not Jeffrey Dahmer. I didn’t invent hemorrhoids. I simply questioned things and they’re trying to demonize me to say questioning things is a bad deal.”
That’s a lie though. Jones himself said the shooting was fake, and he has said in court that he believed it was, though he now believes otherwise. He has also claimed that his company is broke, despite raking in millions in online sales.
“Nobody thinks you killed the kids,” Callaghan told Jones during their interview. “Nobody thinks that oh, it’s what you did. What you killed is [the parents’] ability to get over the death of children.”
Jones responded, “Everyone’s like yeah, ‘We’re gonna get him immediately.’ Like, they’ve built me up and like I’m this giant creature like all-powerful, like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, and none of it’s real. So it’s like it’s funny, actually. It’s actually comical. I mean, it’s, it’s actually hilarious.”
Reprinted with permission from Alternet.
- Alex Jones' Mis-Infowars: 7 Bat-Sh*t Conspiracy Theories – Rolling ... ›
- Alex Jones declares that he's Hitler and a child murderer in ... ›
- The epic story of a Sandy Hook family fighting Alex Jones and the ... ›
- Alex Jones trial - live: Jury shown videos of Infowars host mocking ... ›
- Alex Jones's Attorneys Argue That No Reasonable Person Would ... ›
- Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories ... ›
- I Worked for Alex Jones. I Regret It. - The New York Times ›
