**Justice Thomas and the Uneven Scales of Scrutiny
Armstrong Williams / October 05, 2023
The media holds Justice Clarence Thomas to much different
standards than liberal justices. If the mainstream media endorsed
his opinions, any whining over his financial disclosures would be
muted, says Armstrong Williams.
There is no worse example of a biased, tendentious mainstream
media with ulterior motives than the castigation of Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas during the past half year.
The latest example stems from flyspecking Thomas’ amended
financial disclosure reports, repeating what has never been disputed
and attempting to cast a dark shadow on otherwise innocent, normal
conduct—that the man has affluent friends and these friends engage
in activities with their friends, which is typical of those with
wealth.
Apart from the shameless and intentional misinterpretation of
this reality, what is omitted from the reporting truly speaks
volumes. There are neither accusations nor even circumstantial
evidence that the 700-plus opinions Thomas has written over his
career, the 2,800-plus cases he has voted on, and the millions of
words he has authored have been compromised in any way to benefit
his friends.
Even the “bombshell” article by ProPublica, which detailed
Thomas’ relationship with his friend Harlan Crow, conceded that
“Crow and his firm have not had a case before the Supreme Court
since Thomas joined it.”
Throughout his tenure, neither the media nor any litigant
appearing before Thomas has alleged that he shortchanged justice
in any case for hidden motives. Yet, this ProPublica article and
its subsequent echoes desperately attempt to construe a narrative
that mere friendship with an affluent individual, and receiving
treatment no different from that given to other friends, somehow
signifies that Thomas harbors ulterior motives.
The arguments presented vacillate between being feeble and
outright juvenile. The cornerstone ProPublica piece, for example,
musters the claim that “the details of [Crow’s] discussions with
Thomas over the years remain unknown, and it is unclear if Crow
has had any influence on the justice’s views.” In essence, the
exposé—heralded as a revelation of Thomas’ alleged indiscretions
—ended not with a bang but a whimper.
If the mainstream media endorsed Thomas’ opinions, any whining
over his financial disclosures would be muted or inaudible. When
liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicly and injudiciously as-
sailed Donald Trump’s candidacy in 2016, describing him as “a faker”
and criticizing both his “ego” and his decision not to release his
tax returns (comments for which she later apologized), most in the
media winced for a few seconds but moved on.
Ginsburg remained in its judicial Valhalla, without an adverse
footnote, even though she didn’t recuse herself from numerous cases
involving the Trump administration that subsequently came before
the court. And when Justice Sonia Sotomayor failed to recuse herself
from a case in which her book publisher was before the court, there
was nary a peep from the media.
The obvious problems that could arise from these two instances
warranted far more concern from media watchdogs than Thomas’ case.
After all, why should liberal justices be held to a less exacting
standard than he? All the justices take the same oath to support and
defend the Constitution; all should be role models for the nation’s
youth.
Indeed, when the liberal bloc of the court held sway, Ginsburg
and Sotomayor were far more influential than Thomas, who was regu-
larly relegated to writing pointed, devastating dissents that, un-
fortunately, had no precedential weight.
Of course, Thomas is not above criticism. His judicial handi-
work is fair game, as is that of every other justice; you can ques-
tion his reasoning or his adherence to precedents. As former pres-
ident and, later, Chief Justice William Howard Taft instructed,
Nothing tends more to render judges careful in their decisions
and anxiously solicitous to do exact justice than the consciousness
that every act of theirs is to be subject to the intelligent
scrutiny of their fellow men, and to their candid criticism. … In
the case of judges having a life tenure, indeed, their very inde-
pendence makes the right freely to comment on their decisions of
greater importance, because it is the only practical and available
instrument in the hands of a free people to keep such judges alive
to the reasonable demands of those they serve.
Journalists, of course, should be evenhanded in their analysis
and critiquing of the opinions of all the justices. Thomas should
not be singled out for special treatment, nor should any ideological
bloc of justices be. Journalists should report and analyze fairly,
no matter which justices’ opinions or actions they are analyzing.
Supreme Court reporters, in particular, should be trained in
law to distinguish between the Constitution and partisan politics;
they should avoid turning fleas into elephants or shrinking ele-
phants into fleas.
The Supreme Court bears the profound responsibility of inter-
preting a document penned more than 250 years ago by the most vi-
sionary minds of their era. Thomas, having personally endured the
deep scars of racism stemming from misinterpretations of this very
text, embodies the gravity and significance of this responsibility.
**
Now the Democrats are running out of options to get control
of the entire government that they are now making up lies about
Justice Thomas who has done excellent work so they are attacking
his friends who happen to have wealth.
Lest we forget the Millions of dollars Joe has spent on his
homes purchased on a Senators salary but the truth is coming out
more each day. One of those homes was the DuPont estate.
Maybe it is time for God to intercede and help Americans
expose his true corrupt dishonesty.
Continue to pray for our future.
Conservatively,
John
Conservativelyjohn.com 