I really don’t feel like re-hashing the Supreme Court career of probably the most right wing zealot the court has ever seen, Clarence Thomas. The facts are clear that his career has been a political, social, ethical, and religious disaster in the mind of any person with a moral compass, a sense of ethics, a modicum of intelligence, or a knowledge of the Constitution:
1. He has espoused arguments that even Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito find so outrageous and unsupported by any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution that with regularity they have refused to join or concur;
2. He has routinely sat on cases and voted on decisions where he and/or his wife have personal financial interests in the outcome;
And now, were have proof, from his own works, of his total disregard for the law of the land or any moral or ethical concerns in carrying out the duties of his lofty position.
This past week, Thomas made a rare speaking appearance at a fundraiser before 1,300 conservative lawyers who are members of the ultra-right wing Federalist Society. That he would even make such an appearance for the purpose of raising money for a group that essentially is an organization that lobbies federal courts for decisions that conform to its beliefs, is of great concern to court observers.
Among the gobbledygook Thomas fed his adoring minions was one key statement that tells everyyone everything they ever
need to know about the honesty, morality, and sense of duty possessed by Thomas. He told the crowd that the principle of stare decisis, that court precedent should generally be followed unless there is compelling grounds to change long-standing rules of law, is not enough to keep him from overturning decisions he does not agree with.
No, not decisions that were decided incorrectly.
No, not decisions where society has evolved and new interpretations are needed (such as re-interpreting the first amendment in the internet age).
No, he stated that he feels that he is entitled to change the law of the land according to what HE THINKS the law (including the US Constitution) SHOULD be. According to his personal beliefs.
There were major errors and omissions in the drafting of the original Constitution (as the Bill of Rights, for example, demonstrates) and among these is the lack of recourse given the American people and the other branches of government to enforce some type of standard on the
performance of Supreme Court judges. I am not saying that there should be a way to remove judges for making decisions that one side or another may disagree with, but there should be a method of removal of justices who commit violations of ethical conduct, as Thomas does on a regular basis, and who defy their oath to uphold the Constitution, instead basing their decisions on personal prejudices. As it is, the sole remedy is impeachment, and only for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. Honesty and morality were, evidently, not deemed significant enough to be included.
This man is the one enduring legacy of the mediocre presidency of George H. W. Bush.