[ad_1]
Those assisting the Thomases financially eased their friends’ financial burdens, rewarded Justice Thomas’s continuing devotion to advancing the conservative agenda on the court and encouraged his longevity on the court. Laws might or might not have been broken, but it stands to reason that Mr. Leo and Justice Thomas recognized the impropriety; otherwise, Mr. Leo would not have secreted the payment to Ms. Thomas, and Justice Thomas would not have failed to report Mr. Crow’s munificence.
David Schlitz, Washington
Set aside the uproar and outrage over the Supreme Court’s controversial decisions and the accusations of political activism for a moment. What we need to address is the utter lack of sound judgment on display.
We expect Supreme Court justices to be above reproach, and the accumulating evidence of corruption demonstrates we must demand it.
In another time, such as the Abe Fortas period, Justice Clarence Thomas would do the right thing and resign. He has rightfully become a laughingstock, with Roy Wood Jr.’s White House correspondents’ dinner joke about the billionaire who bought a Supreme Court justice nailing the scandal. But the president isn’t of the same party as the person who nominated Justice Thomas, so he won’t resign. That is political activism.
But the lack of judgment has permeated elsewhere: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. refuses to discuss ethics with the Senate, claiming separation of powers. He doesn’t seem to understand that the Supreme Court’s conduct deserves such public scrutiny. Its credibility is at stake.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said last year that for us to question the court’s legitimacy “crosses an important line.” Well, we’re there. And those justices who can’t abide by what should be the nation’s most stringent code of ethics should go find another job.
Jay Margolis, Delray Beach, Fla.
[ad_2]
Source link
