What Exactly Did Justice Thomas Do Wrong?
April 14, 2023 5:27 pm ET Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas at the White House, April 10, 2017. Photo: Joshua Roberts/REUTERS Justice Thomas is once again under attack (“The Smearing of Clarence Thomas,” Review & Outlook, April 8). Why is he such a peculiarly attractive target? I suspect that those on the left feel they are being cheated and believe that they should own his vote based only on the color of his skin. Perhaps they are unable to imagine that he has reached conservative conclusions based on independent thought and a developed jurisprudence. His decisions must then be based on corruption, incompetence and bad faith. Justice Thomas has responded to these perennial attacks with courage, fortitude and grace. John Mellen Wilmington, Mass. Public employees at any level and of any political party should not be allowed to ac
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas at the White House, April 10, 2017.
Photo: Joshua Roberts/REUTERS
Justice Thomas is once again under attack (“The Smearing of Clarence Thomas,” Review & Outlook, April 8). Why is he such a peculiarly attractive target? I suspect that those on the left feel they are being cheated and believe that they should own his vote based only on the color of his skin.
Perhaps they are unable to imagine that he has reached conservative conclusions based on independent thought and a developed jurisprudence. His decisions must then be based on corruption, incompetence and bad faith. Justice Thomas has responded to these perennial attacks with courage, fortitude and grace.
John Mellen
Wilmington, Mass.
Public employees at any level and of any political party should not be allowed to accept gifts, especially gifts worth millions of dollars. Gifts make the receiver beholden to the giver, which is clearly dangerous for a judge. Justice Thomas didn’t just tag along. Reports indicate that Harlan Crowe dispatched private jets to ferry him around. Let’s say Justice Sonia Sotomayor had accepted millions of dollars of luxury items from George Soros. Would the editorial board really see no issue with it?
Rob Linford
Spokane, Wash.
Given the reporting on Justice Thomas’s upscale travel and leisure with wealthy friends, it is worth noting that the provision of such accommodations is considered inconsequential under federal tax laws.
The value would have no income-tax relevance, nor would these trips be considered gifts if there was no transfer of property or cash involved. Although stricter disclosure rules may be salutary, the court’s rules frin that time are aligned with longstanding tax laws.
Edward Abahoonie
Sparkill, N.Y
While Justice Thomas doesn’t appear to have done anything illegal, his behavior reminds me of the advice of an attorney friend when I questioned the actions of one of my colleagues.
His observation was that my colleague’s actions, though legal, didn’t pass the “smell test.” He also advised that we should avoid the appearance of unethical behavior, since it could diminish public trust.
Justice Thomas’s behavior doesn’t pass the smell test and has damaged the public’s trust in the Supreme Court, something we can’t afford in a nation that already lacks trust in our institutions.
Ron Moore
Knoxville, Tenn.
What's Your Reaction?
