Rebecca TushnetMy own theory about Clarence Thomas is that, obviously, he initially got the money because of ideological compatibility. He wasn't bribed to hold those views; he was induced to *keep* those views. The function of the money and luxury vacations is to prevent evolution of his judging; we do have many historical examples of Justices who've evolved as they've seen different things. But that won't happen if the money and luxury spigot is flowing this way.
Frank Bennett đŻđľ@rtushnet As Maggie Thatcher would say, it is to assure that he remains "one of us."
Lotus Blossom@rtushnet Or the bribes were a way to encourage him to write a decision/concurrence to favor his "friends" and his spouse's organization. The language in the decision influences lower courts.
Andrew D.@rtushnet the âluxury spigotâ among other things underscores how disconnected this manâwho will be ruling on many more sensitive social issues in our futureâis from the rest of us. The 0.01% (and hard right) of us lives in a different world.
zeruch@rtushnet I think that's plausible, if a bit kind. Correlation/causation is never going to be untangled from the mess...
Kim Scheinberg@rtushnet
I think Crow enjoys ownership, particularly of people and their legacies.
I'm skeptical that anyone worries about Thomas evolving. Everything I need to know about him is in this quote from 30 years ago
"The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas â who was 43 years old when confirmed â saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."
Guys like him never let go of a grudge.
Paul Cantrell@kims @rtushnet
Agreed, itâs certainly reasonable to speculate that he wouldnât have evolved very far. I do think Rebeccaâs point stands, for exactly the reason Kim states in her first sentence: thereâs a difference between Crow fully expecting Thomas to stay bitter forever and Crow feeling like he â˘owns⢠Thomas.
When the latter is present, there simply can be no trust in Thomasâs judicial integrity, regardless of his actual beliefs and how they might hypothetically have evolved.
tobie@rtushnet Your take makes sense to me. When Thomas was appointed to the Court, he was already an ultra-conservative. Lavish gifts and membership in the club has ensured he stayed that way. It's like omerta at this point.
Zorro Notorious MEB đĄ@rtushnet Does that distinction really matter though? Remember, Thomas was controversial from the day he was nominated to succeed Thurgood Marshall. I seriously doubt he would have "evovled" even without the cash flow.
Abe Fortas is spinning in his grave. đĄ
Seankidder@rtushnet sounds right.
@rtushnet And you can view Thomas as a symbol of a type of success model: "Come to the revisionist camp and we will lavish you with luxury."
mpmaddog@rtushnet THE RIGHT has PAID for this court..HANDS DOWN..
arceuthobium@rtushnet not to mention itâs an incentive to never retire.
@rtushnet
He evolved from a well off man to a very rich man, the more you have the more you want. Most of us however do not have a Supreme Court seat to migrate that process. He does, he did.
He evolved from a well off man to a very rich man, the more you have the more you want. Most of us however do not have a Supreme Court seat to migrate that process. He does, he did.
Jorge StolfiEven so, (1) he shoudl have reported the gifts, and (2) he should have recused himself in those cases where his "friend" had interest.
Ditto for the other members...
And it is telling that he is in that portrait being watched by Leonard Leo, the "Judge Whisperer"...