By
In what should have been an unremarkable act by a government worker, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas filed his required annual financial disclosure form.
Of course, what makes the filing noteworthy is that it comes after investigative reporting by ProPublica revealed years of lavish, undisclosed largesse to Thomas from GOP billionaire Harlan Crow. Even still, Thomas’ lawyer put out a pouty statement in connection with the disclosure that paints the life-tenured justice as the victim of “political blood sport,” for people having the gall to question his questionable behavior. (Fellow Republican appointee Samuel Alito, who has come under scrutiny himself for undisclosed private jet travel from a conservative billionaire, also has filed his disclosure after receiving a 90-day extension.)
“The financial disclosure process should never be weaponized against any Justice simply because any organization or anyone disagrees with the way a Justice thinks, writes, or votes,” part of the lengthy statement on Thomas’ behalf reads.
That’s true enough as far as axioms go, but it doesn’t do anything to address the justice’s case. One could just as easily point out the opposite — that no one should ever defend a justice’s unethical behavior simply because they agree with the way a justice thinks, writes or votes. But that, too, wouldn’t answer the question of whether Thomas has violated the law by failing to disclose past benefits from Crow, the Republican megadonor. That’s an open question that still needs official resolution and, if necessary, legal consequences.
In the meantime, it’s worth emphasizing that Thomas’ 2022 report not only lists Crow-funded private travel, meals and lodging, but the justice also attempts to address prior nondisclosures, including the real estate deal in which Crow bought Thomas’ mother’s house. Thomas’ form said he “continues to work” with Supreme Court officials and the Judicial Conference’s Financial Disclosure Committee “for guidance on whether he should further amend his reports from any prior years.”
His form further cites “personal bank accounts and his spouse’s life insurance that were inadvertently omitted from prior reports for the covered period 2017 thru 2021” — his spouse, of course, being Virginia “Ginni” Thomas. The justice said bank information was “inadvertently omitted in prior years due to a misinterpretation of the rules.” At the risk of engaging in political blood sport, I might point out that the sort of tough-on-crime judging practiced by Thomas isn’t overly indulgent of rule-breaking.
In the end, for all the handwringing from Thomas’ backers over scrutiny of his prior nondisclosures, the justice apparently concedes there’s some merit to the idea of reviewing his prior behavior and, perhaps, making amends, even if doing so halfheartedly and unconvincingly while continuing to play the victim.