Its time to pressure Clarence Thomas to retire

Today in The Washington Post Ruth Marcus wrote a column saying electing judges is a terrible idea.

And judges chosen and appointed by politicians is better why?  

IMO the same reasons not to let the voters elect judges could be argued that the same problems she brought up with elected judges could be applied to judges appointed by politicians.

We now know that every conservative judge on the Supreme Court lied during their hearings when asked about Roe v Wade.  And the Senate never did get an answer from Kavanaugh who paid off his mortgage and credit card debt.


From the column…

“So, you may ask, why the long face?

The root of the problem is the system itself. Electing judges is a terrible way to create a judiciary that is independent and trusted by the public to rule impartially. Wisconsin is one of 22 states where judges on the highest court are only chosen through election. Its elections are technically nonpartisan, but the absence of a party label fooled precisely no one. Since his failure to be reelected to the supreme court in 2020, Kelly has been paid nearly $120,000 by the Wisconsin Republican Party and the Republican National Committee to work on election issues, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. Protasiewicz, for her part, said she would “likely” recuse herself from any case involving the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, one of her top campaign donors.

This system produces terrible incentives and bad results, as retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor argued on behalf of merit selection in 2009. “The amount of money poured into judicial campaigns has skyrocketed, intensifying the need to re-examine how we choose judges in America,” she told CNN. “I believe it is our moral duty and obligation to restore the public’s confidence in our judicial system.”

Of course, things have proceeded in the opposite direction. The situation in 2009 looks quaint compared with the torrent of spending and overt politicization that has erupted since then. And the Wisconsin race didn’t just set a new standard for spending — it featured comment and behavior that went beyond the norm for judicial candidates and augur poorly for the future.

The race degenerated to a level of nastiness to rival any ordinary election. Kelly and Protasiewicz did not shake hands at their debate; after the election was called Tuesday evening, Kelly declared, “I do not have a worthy opponent to which I can concede,” calling Protasiewicz a “serial liar” who “demeaned the judiciary with her behavior.” Talk about demeaning. This is the unseemly Trumpification of judicial elections. All that was missing was a chant of “Lock her up!”

For her part, Protasiewicz walked a wobbly line between declaring that voters had a right to know her “values” and insisting that she would “put them aside,” as she told the Atlantic’s Ronald Brownstein, in cases that might come before her. Beyond her statements on abortion and gerrymandering, she declared that the state’s law limiting collective bargaining for public employees was unconstitutional — an assertion that might require her to recuse herself in a case challenging that law. Some people hear this and think: It’s about time. Judges are political actors, and we might as well abandon any pretense to the contrary.
“Is it only when progressives win by being honest about their views that we hear shrieks about politicization of the judiciary?” asks my colleague Jennifer Rubin. “Frankly, after years of right-wing judges dissembling about their respect for precedent and their supposed open-mindedness (despite public advocacy against abortion), there is something refreshing about progressive judges going to voters to set out their values.”

Maybe, but if you, like me, hold out faint hope that judges can rise above the partisan fray, if you think judges are, or can be, more than politicians in robes, you look at the goings-on in Wisconsin and recognize that celebration must be tinged with a dollop of despair.”



Its a gift article so you should be able to read her entire column.

wapo.st/3KFEZbi

Meanwhile Clarence Thomas has released a response.   Only an idiot would believe that this guy was just being overly generous with Thomas and would expect nothing in return for paying for all or most of the expenses for lavish trips not once but many many times.


From the Washington Post….  wapo.st/40ONkPT

“As friends do, we have joined [Crow and his wife] on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them,” Thomas said in a statement. “Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.

Thomas said he has “endeavored to follow that counsel” throughout his time on the high court. Federal law mandates that top officials from the three branches of government, including the Supreme Court, file annual forms detailing their finances, outside income and spouses’ sources of income, with each branch determining its own reporting standards.“

&

”Thomas’s trips funded by Crow do not appear on his most recent financial disclosures. Since 2004, Thomas has reported only two gifts: an award from his alma mater Yale Law School and a bust of Frederick Douglass given to him by Crow.”

I worked with two members of the Bohemian Club years ago.  They weren’t members because they were rich but members because they could sing and provide entertainment at events like up at the Grove.

At one point this idea that deals were made at the Grove during the encampment came up when I was working with these guys.  They swore nothing like that was going on at Grove.  In fact they got a little snippy about it.   I doubt very much they were allowed anywhere near where the movers and shakers were.  If anyone believes that deals weren’t made during this time  then they are awfully naive.


From the Press Democrat.


“Bohemian Grove, the annual men-only summer retreat in Monte Rio, regularly attracts powerful men. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is one of those men, according to a ProPublica report out Thursday about luxury trips taken by Thomas paid for by billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow.

So, what is Bohemian Grove? Here’s what to know.

It is a 2,700-acre campground owned by San Francisco’s secretive Bohemian Club in the west county town of Monte Rio. The group bought the land in 1899. Each July it plays host to a two-weeklong gathering of business and political leaders. The guest list is secret but some of the famous people known to have attended including presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and author Jack London.

An 1880 newspaper report of a Bohemian Club gathering described it as a “joyous occasion,” according to a July 2021 Press Democrat story.

The gathering has a history of controversy, including the exclusion of women. There have been protests over the years but recently those have become smaller and smaller.

Each year, before the rich and powerful bid farewell to Sonoma County, the Bohemian Club hosts a popular variety show fundraiser benefiting local nonprofits and starring some members from the entertainment world. In 2022, comedian and TV personality Conan O’Brien hosted the event, which was attended by more than 2,000 people.”