Vol. 1 Issue 7: Profiles in Discourage: Clarence Thomas
Noted sexual harassment enthusiast and conservatives’ “Black friend” Clarence Thomas is in the news again.
A Consistent Track Record of Suckage
Justice Clarence Thomas is making headlines once again. Thankfully, it’s not for allegations of sexual harassment, being married to an insurrectionist, or being okay with having a Black man be executed in a racially-tinged trial.
Instead, it is because ProPublica reported that billionaire and Nazi memorabilia aficionado Harlan Crow had taken Clarence Thomas on lavish vacations, and owns the home that Thomas’ mother lives in but does not pay rent for. In response, Thomas noted that he’s been friends with Harlan Crow for 25 years. Notably, he’s also been on the bench for 30 years. Lawyers are allergic to math, but that would mean that Harlan Crow befriended Thomas after he became a Justice.
This is the latest episode in the show titled Is Clarence Thomas Stupid or Evil? In this series, we’ve seen him fail to disclose that his wife took donations from conservative groups for years. That came on the heels of his wife being actively involved in the insurrection, pushing key members of the Trump White House to overturn the election. While we cannot hold spouses liable for each others’ flaws, we’ll bet our entire lives’ savings (a grand total of $420.69) that Clarence and Ginni Thomas’ pillow talk consists solely of whispering sweet conservative nothings at each other and planning an ejaculation insurrection.
Stupid, or Evil? Why Not Both?
Clarence Thomas is clearly stupid. Despite the Wall Street Journal’s simping for Thomas, Justices of the highest court are supposed to know the law, and they’re surrounded by teams of lawyers to ensure that they comply with ethics rules. That’s why they’re called Justices, and why they get to dress up in 1800s drag. The facts show that Thomas knew that his most recent actions were unethical and possibly illegal, since he has only disclosed this information after being caught red handed. Senators, Presidents, and candidates for cabinet positions have been punished for less.
But Clarence Thomas is also clearly evil. He’s the Court’s leading justice in moving constitution law back to the 1800s, when people like Clarence Thomas would not have been Justices on the Supreme Court. Not only is he an originalist and textualist, but he is the founding father of the brand of originalism and textualism that interprets laws in favor of conservatives, regardless of what the law says or was intended to mean. Whether it is gun rights, state’s rights, or abortion rights, Clarence Thomas always finds a conservative interpretation. He is the Tim Donaghy of the Supreme Court, but more smug.
At least it gets worse. Clarence Thomas’ judicial philosophy of originalism and textualism is heinously socially conservative, like a chastity belt for the law. He thinks that whether it is cruel and unusual to tie a prisoner to a whipping post in the hot Alabama sun depends on how many hours that prisoner was in the sun for (any number more than 0 suffices). He thinks that Black people are unable to keep up at elite institutions, and that it would be safer for them to go to colleges where they would feel more intellectually competitive. And he’s unironically skeptical of desegregation, like the hipster of racism.
So is Thomas stupid or evil? He’s both: a combination of mutant powers that makes him a compelling supervillain.
The Supreme Court Isn’t That Supreme
The Supreme Court holds itself out as an institution that regulates itself, much like how banks have adequately regulated themselves and how Silicon Valley has adequately regulated itself. The Court is not subject to any ethical code, even though it is supposed to be the final arbiter of ethicality in our justice system. Justices often think that they are capable of judging when their actions cross the boundaries into unethicality, because donning those robes gives them the superhuman ability to repel greed and sexual harassment claims. Clarence Thomas himself believes that he’s above fray and is unbiased, even though he has noted that he ejaculates to liberal tears. So the playing field is not level. It’s like trying to win an election against an African dictator, or in a Republican state.
But we already know that the Supreme Court is not an impartial body. It is a political institution that has a night job as a legal forum. Regardless, Clarence Thomas’s scandals raise questions about corruption, billionaires’ access to governing institutions (that the poors simply do not have), and the deep-rooted reach of conservative donors. These donors like Clarence Thomas because he is pro-deregulation, anti-campaign finance limits, and pro-asshole.
It may be mere coincidence that Thomas rules conservatively, and his rulings align with his conservative sponsors. But government officials are not supposed to benefit from their positions as public servants. This is why Joe Biden doesn’t wear a jacket that says “sponsored by Ray Ban and Ben & Jerry’s.” And it also shows that people with more dollars and Nazi memorabilia in their pockets have the ears of the most powerful people in the country. You don’t see Reddit user Marijuana_42069 whispering weed decriminalization propaganda into Sonia Sotomayor’s ears.
We could push our congresspeople to hold hearings and pass Supreme Court ethics reform. We could push the needle on term limits at the Supreme Court, or simply appoint a tenth justice. But more importantly, we could stop seeing the Supreme Court less as a standard-bearer of what legality and ethicality is. Instead, it is an out-of-touch institution whose power has gone unchecked by the other branches of government, and refuses to be regulated. The Supreme Court justices aren’t the smartest, most moral, or most successful people or even lawyers in our country. Some of them are partisan hacks in drag, and we ought to start treating them as such.