Of course the woke Left pretends to be scandalized by Justice Clarence Thomas. The corporate leftist press figures Americans can handle only one scandal at a time, and so writing about Thomas takes the focus off the Bidens, père and fils.
A Washington Post columnist has been frothing at his keyboard about Justice Thomas because . . . well, he says it’s because Thomas didn’t fill out an ethics form properly. Isn’t that rich? The Washington Post, which didn’t cover the Hunter Biden laptop story and barely covered the Antony Blinken 51-lying spooks laptop coverup scandal, is complaining about some technical errors in Thomas’ financial disclosure form.
“Court watchers,” writes Greg Sargent, “believe [congressional inaction in this area] has helped encourage Supreme Court justices such as Clarence Thomas to disregard any sense of propriety, [any?] as the string of revelations about Thomas’s slipshod approach to ethics has shown.”
What utter balderdash. The Wall Street Journal recently ran three pieces by James Taranto completely debunking the Thomas ethics “scandal” story. Taranto concedes Thomas may have to file an amended financial disclosure form to report his share of a sale of his mother’s house. Big deal.
Taranto also reported that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to amend her 2011 report, which “inadvertently omitted” certain information as well as her 2017 form to report a gift she had “inadvertently omitted.” Justice Stephen Breyer also reported that he had “inadvertently omitted” two stock sales by his wife.
After being nominated by Joe Biden, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson—you remember her: she’s the one who was unable to provide a definition of a woman, saying, “I’m not a biologist”—amended her 2020 disclosure to note that in various years between 2011 and 2021 she had “inadvertently omitted” certain information. No doubt you remember the breathless coverage of those scandals in the Washington Post.
Of course, any sentient reader knows these Post articles aren’t about ethics.
Sargent writes: “Republicans view any talk of ethics reform as an assault on their grand project of taking over the courts.” What’s the difference between “taking over the courts” and “taking back the courts”?
Sargent, the Washington Post, and the entire woke-Left establishment have been in a tizzy ever since President Trump got to appoint a third Supreme Court justice, thereby cementing a conservative majority on the high court. Roe v. Wade was overturned, as they had feared, and they have nightmares about what other decisions may be handed down by the Trump Court. They want the Court to be “neutral”—you know, the way it was for the 50 years before Trump. Not!
Do any of the following cases resemble the decisions of a “neutral” Court? See if you can spot the common theme in them.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) invalidated laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual activity and establishing the right to privacy for all adults in the United States. Thomas dissented, arguing that the Constitution does not protect a right to engage in homosexual acts and that the Court’s decision undermined traditional moral standards.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) upheld affirmative action in university admissions, “recognizing” that diversity in education is a compelling state interest. Thomas dissented, arguing that the program violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and perpetuated racial discrimination.
In Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, paving the way for greater regulation of greenhouse gasses and other pollutants. Thomas dissented, arguing that the EPA did not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gasses as air pollutants.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as “Obamacare,” ensuring that millions of Americans would continue to have access to the benefits provided by that act. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that the ACA’s individual mandate, which required individuals to purchase health insurance, exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.
United States v. Windsor (2013) invalidated a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal law. The Court held that the provision violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Thomas dissented, arguing that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to same-sex marriage and that the federal government had a legitimate interest in promoting traditional marriage.
In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) the Supreme Court recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry, making it legal for same-sex couples to marry and have their unions recognized in all 50 states. Thomas dissented, arguing that the Constitution does not address the issue of same-sex marriage and that the Court’s decision usurped the authority of the states to regulate marriage.
An imaginary bottle of bubbly to all those readers who detected the common theme: Thomas dissented. That is why the wokies want him gone. That is what the whole anti-Thomas ethics “scandal” has been about. Thomas is the sort of man who can tell what a woman is. In Wokeville, such men are dangerous.
But we can make a prediction: Thomas will only leave the Court feet first.
Long live Clarence Thomas!