By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Judicial Conference refused to refer Justice Clarence Thomas to the Department of Justice for investigation despite his failure to disclose lavish gifts and travel, citing jurisdictional concerns and claiming his amended disclosures addressed the issues. This decision effectively guts the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which explicitly grants the Conference this referral power, leaving Thomas without accountability for his actions. The Conference’s assertion that Thomas is now compliant is contradicted by evidence showing continued omissions in his disclosures. This lack of accountability highlights the judiciary’s inability to police itself and foreshadows a likely lack of investigation by the incoming Trump administration, solidifying a system where powerful figures face no repercussions for ethical violations.
Read the original article here
Clarence Thomas’s continued tenure on the Supreme Court, despite numerous ethical breaches, is a stark illustration of how power, political affiliation, and a lack of robust accountability mechanisms can shield even the most egregious misconduct. It’s not that he *almost* got away with it; he demonstrably did, and continues to.
The absence of binding judicial ethics rules specifically for Supreme Court justices is the cornerstone of his impunity. This gaping hole in the system allows justices to operate with minimal external oversight, picking and choosing which rules they deem relevant. It’s a self-regulating system that, in this instance, has demonstrably failed.
His blatant disregard for ethical conduct extends far back, even predating his current controversies. The Anita Hill hearings, though focused on sexual harassment, already revealed a pattern of ethically questionable behavior, foreshadowing the later revelations of lavish gifts and undisclosed financial ties. This pattern shows a consistent pattern of disrespect for established norms and expectations.
While some might attribute his continued presence on the court to his Republican affiliation, it’s more than mere party loyalty. It’s a systematic problem of complicity. Chief Justice Roberts’ inaction, the Republican-controlled Congress’s failure to enact meaningful ethics reforms, and the historical lack of presidential pressure on the Court to adopt stronger ethical standards all play significant roles. This is a systemic failure to hold power accountable, and it isn’t limited to any single individual or party.
This isn’t a new phenomenon, either. The foundational flaws in our system of checks and balances, coupled with a lack of foresight by the Founding Fathers about the potential for bad-faith actors within the judiciary, has allowed this situation to fester. The system has, quite simply, been co-opted by those within it, and there are few mechanisms available to correct the course.
The lack of consequence is strikingly different from other high-profile professions. Sports officials, for instance, face far stricter scrutiny, with even the appearance of impropriety resulting in penalties. Yet, judges and politicians, wielding immense power, can accept significant sums from special interests with little to no public repercussions. This fundamental disparity speaks volumes about the pervasive imbalance within our system.
The impeachment process, theoretically a check on judicial misconduct, hasn’t proven effective. The historical record, marked by only one impeachment attempt that failed, underscores the difficulty of holding Supreme Court justices accountable through this route. This underscores a critical need for alternative approaches to addressing such issues, as the existing mechanisms are demonstrably inadequate.
Furthermore, the timing of the revelations is itself a telling factor. Had these ethical breaches been uncovered prior to the election, they might have had a more significant impact on public opinion and electoral outcomes. However, the revelation was rather slow and less impactful than the actual behavior.
The complicit silence of those within the system is perhaps the most frustrating aspect. The suggestion that Thomas might be shielded because he holds potentially damaging information about his colleagues hints at a deeper level of corruption. The lack of willingness by other powerful figures to challenge him suggests a culture of mutual protection and a pervasive atmosphere of impunity.
Ultimately, the question of “how Clarence Thomas got away with it” isn’t solely about individual actions but a systemic failure. It’s a complex interplay of weak ethical regulations, political gridlock, and a culture that prioritizes partisan loyalty over accountability. Until these underlying problems are addressed, the potential for similar situations to unfold remains high. The expectation that his departure will be due to natural causes rather than due process serves as a sobering reminder that even the most blatant violations of ethics can go unpunished within the highest echelons of power. As long as the rule of law is not equally applied, this will continue.