Great River Energy generously supports MinnPost's D.C. Memo. Learn why.
WASHINGTON – Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said this week he plans to hold a hearing into “the need to restore confidence in the Supreme Court’s ethical standards” following revelations that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted luxury vacations from a major GOP donor, but failed to disclose them.
The hearing, which Durbin said would be held “in the coming days,” would provide a peek into the ethics policy and disclosure requirements required of those who sit on the nation’s highest court and would give Judiciary Committee member Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., an opportunity to publicly press for reforms.
Last month, the Judicial Conference updated its guidance on financial disclosures, but lawmakers like Durbin say more action is needed. Yet, because of the separation of powers doctrine, legal scholars have argued that Congress doesn’t have the authority to impose ethics rules on the Supreme Court. And any bill that would try to impose disclosure requirements on the Supreme Court may not make it through the GOP-led House.
Harlan Crow, the conservative Texas real estate billionaire who lavished trips and gifts to Thomas, has given millions of dollars to Republican candidates and Republican political action committees. Recent contributions include nearly $185,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee in the most recent election cycle, when Rep. Tom Emmer, R-6th District, headed the group.
But Harlan also donated to the campaigns of a handful of Democrats, including Don Samuels, who ran against Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-5th District, last year in a Democratic primary. Harlan gave the Samuels campaign $2,400.
Other Democrats who recently received contributions from Crow include former Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. Those donations were made when the two were blocking a major Democratic bill that would boost clean energy.
Dean Phillips says Dianne Feinstein must go
Rep. Dean Phillips, D-3rd District, and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., raised eyebrows this week in saying longtime Sen. Diane Feinstein should resign, touching off a firestorm of criticisms from fellow Democrats.
Democrats included former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others questioned why House members where weighing in an issue that involves the U.S. Senate.
“It’s interesting to me,” Pelosi told reporters. “I don’t know what political agendas are at work that are going after Sen. Feinstein in that way. I’ve never seen them go after a man who was sick in the Senate in that way.”
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., also said the calls by Khanna and Phillips to resign were hypocritical.
“There have been male senators who have been away from the chamber for quite a period of time … Mitch McConnell, for instance, has been out of the Senate for a few months,”
Murphy said. McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, has been recovering from a fall.
Feinstein, D-Calif., has been absent from the Senate since late February after being diagnosed with shingles. Her absence, along with the absence of Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., who was hospitalized with depression, but is returning to work next week, left the Senate evenly split, 49-49 between Democrats and Republicans and also denying Democrats a majority in the Senate Judiciary Committee, stalling nominations.
Feinstein, who at 89 is the oldest member of the Senate, announced in February she would not run for reelection in 2024.
But Khanna said she should leave the Senate immediately. He was the first to say Feinstein should go.
“It’s time for @Sen.Feinstein to resign,” Khanna tweeted. “We need to put the country ahead of personal loyalty. While she has had a lifetime of public service, it is obvious she can no longer fulfill her duties. Not speaking out undermines our credibility as elected representatives of the people.”
Phillips quickly seconded that tweet.
“I agree with @RoKhanna,” Phillips tweeted. “Senator Feinstein is a remarkable American whose contributions to our country are immeasurable. But I believe it’s now a dereliction of duty for those who agree to remain quiet.”
Phillips was the first Democrat to say that President Biden should not run for re-election and that “the country would be well served by a new generation of compelling, well-prepared, dynamic Democrats to step up.”
Phillips also called for new leadership in the House before Pelosi, 83, and former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, 83, and former Democratic House Whip Jim Clyburn, 82, stepped down last year, paving the way for younger leaders.
Feinstein put out a statement shortly after Khanna and Phillips pressed for her resignation.
“When I was first diagnosed with shingles, I expected to return by the end of the March work period. Unfortunately, my return to Washington has been delayed due to continued complications related to my diagnosis,” Feinstein said in her statement. “I intend to return as soon as possible once my medical team advises that it’s safe for me to travel.”
The California senator, however, also asked Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to ask the Senate to allow another Democratic senator to temporarily take her place on the Senate Judiciary Committee “until I’m able to resume my committee work.”
This and that
At a speech next Monday on Wall Street, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is expected to roll out some of the GOP’s demands that would win Republican support that’s needed to increase the debt limit.
The plan includes limiting the growth of all non-defense spending to 1% annually next year, prohibiting student loan forgiveness, instituting work requirements for food stamps and other social programs and implementing a House Republican energy plan that includes Rep. Pete Stauber’s proposal to streamline and speed permitting of mining on federal land.
The GOP plan will also seek to claw back unspent federal COVID relief money that may be in state and city coffers. It’s unclear how much unobligated money Minnesota and its municipalities have, if any.
Meanwhile, national Democrats this week picked the Midwest over the South as the site for its 2024 national convention.
Both Chicago and Atlanta were in the running, but concerns over non-union employees of Atlanta hotels and the promise Chicago would raise money to fund the convention put the Windy City over the top.
“The DNC is returning to the Midwest, a critical Democratic stronghold: Illinois along with Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota – part of the ‘blue wall’ – were crucial to the 2020 victory of President Biden and Vice President Harris and to Democrats’ success in the 2022 midterm elections,” the Democratic National Committee said in a statement.
There needs to be some real standards of mental competence for members of all 3 branches of government. They should have sound decision making capabilities I don’t care which side of the aisle you are on.
I agree, time for Clarence Thomas to resign…
Has the Justice been found mentally incompetent?
He is, to put it mildly, ethically challenged.
So your answer is no. Thank you for your honesty.
What difference does that make to his ethical violations?
“This person has been charged with robbing a bank.”
“Have they been found mentally incompetent?”
“No.”
“Thank you for your honesty.”
No matter the context, it sounds ridiculous.
Not sure of that, but he certainly misses the mark on:
“sound decision making capabilities”
Described in the post. Or is his behavior all Okie Dokie in our post-truth Republican world?
So you agree that the Justice is not mentally incompetent. Thank you for your honesty as well.
“They should have sound decision making capabilities ”
Is the portion of the post you conveniently ignore. And I do not think folks are challenging Feinstein’s or Grassley’s mental competence. You just need to play “gotcha” because you are unable to argue on the facts.
Do you believe Thomas has:
“sound decision making capabilities “
If he doesn’t know that a half million dollar trip on a megayacht or all-inclusive trip to wherever in the world is a gift, or whether to check a box that states his spouse has income when she has income, he’s mentally incompetent. These are simple things that he can’t figure out, yet he’s on the highest court in the country where complex things need decisions. It’s either corruption or mental deficiency. I suppose it could be both.
Giving absolute political power to lifetime appointees was not one of the better ideas of the founders. I would have liked to have been there the day that decision was reached at the convention.
But the fact is, if we didn’t repose absolute trust in these people why did we hire them for a job for which by it’s nature there is no accountability?
Do you remember Justice Thomas’s confirmation hearings? Any criticism of him at all – any – was labeled as racism and (to use his own words) a “high-tech lynching of a black man.” Accountability is out the window. His insane jurisprudence will be with us until he keels over.
That used to be called “playing the race card” and was supposed to be bad when liberals do it. When conservatives do it, it’s 20 points in that day’s game of “Owning the Libs.”
As a critic of policy, I don’t worry a lot about being criticized, myself. If senators charged with endowing an individual with absolute power for a good long time however that is stated in the constitution can’t take a little heat, they don’t belong in the job.
There’s no Constitutional provision making appointment to the federal judiciary for a lifetime. All Article III, Section 1 says is that “judges shall hold office during good behavior” but doesn’t fix any term. Congress can fix the terms of federal judges and Supreme Court Justices for whatever length appropriate. I think it’s time to change the terms of these judges to 10 or 15 years and also define “good behavior” to mean disclosing all gifts and money from sources other than salary.
So far, so good: hearings are to be held over Clarence T’s egregious ethical violations, which now include selling family real estate to “conservative” Godfather Crow. (And spare me Crow’s contributions against Omar and to reward Manchin and Sinema in their attempts to block critical Dem legislation.) Whether the senate Dems have the commitment and ability to carry them off successfully remains to be seen, especially with the hapless Feinstein hamstringing the Judiciary Committee.
Dems need to demonstrate how unprecedented this level of unethical behavior is for a justice, and how it’s quite obvious why Clarence saw fit to keep it all secret for decades. Dems also need to question “Chief” Roberts to determine who (if anyone) supposedly told Clarence that these luxury accommodations and exotic vacations didn’t need to be disclosed, as well as if he has advised Thomas to resign as a result of this national scandal.
It would also be helpful for any justices who are disgusted by Thomas’s conduct to publicly call for his resignation, since such corruption is dragging the already-destroyed reputation of the Supreme Court even deeper into the cesspool. Now is the time for Dems to go on an all-out offensive against the Repub Supreme Court.
But wait, there’s more! Not only did justice thomas forget several years of his wife’s employment, he also claimed income from a defunct family business (her side), while ignoring another. An early excuse for his erroneous paperwork was a misunderstanding of the rules. But, really, are we supposed to believe that a supreme court justice isn’t smart enough to figure out how to report income? Would he believe that line of bull from a witness in his court?
Now we know that this Crow dude bought Clarence’s mother’s house, made improvements and became her landlord. Clarence didn’t report the transaction, one of the few actual rules that the Supremes have to follow and Thomas failed to do so. We don’t know if Crow over paid, but apparently the year before he paid 40 grand for a similar house. He paid $133 grand plus put $36 thousand into renovations for Mom’s home. Oh he did get a couple lots owned by by the family as well, so maybe they were worth the extra $100 grand? Yeah, it must all be on the up and up and it was just an oversight that it didn’t get reported. I mean what’s $140 grand for a house, when you’ve already taken $500 grand for a nine day vacation. It really can’t be THAT important, right?
Pelosi knows very well that the concerns of Phillips and others is not over Feinstein’s shingles illness. Feinstein is creating another ‘Ginsberg’ situation for the Democrats by hanging on.
Except that I doubt a Republican would replace her, if her health did force her out of the Senate.
There is a genuine institutional question of the propriety of members of the House commenting on the Senate’s operations.
So the Governor would appoint a Republican? Or the State elect one?
We all know what this is all about. The democrats are trying to get Thomas to resign so Biden can appoint his replacement from their stable of gender/ethnically-correct potted plants they have waiting in the wings. You know, like the last person, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who couldn’t tell us what a woman is. But because it’s so obvious, that ain’t going to happen. But you’d think they have a little more self-awareness or savvy than to attack the only Black man on the Court.
Do you not think justices should accurately disclose their financial interests? Is it credulous that a supreme court justice gets confused by the requirement to report their spouse’s income? It’s pretty weird, I think you’ll agree, that he accurately reported Ginni’s income for a number of years, then opted to check the ‘no income’ box, despite her being gainfully employed.
Apparently you find Thomas’s unethical conduct defensible. How about some reasons other than playing the right-wing race card. (Cf RB Holbrook comment above). That you can’t come up something than “potted plants” to criticize Supreme Court Justices who were appointed by President Biden or other Democratic President tells me you have nothing at all to criticize.
Just like “conservatives” didn’t have the self-awareness or savvy to refrain from attacking the only Black female nominated to the court? As you just did as well?
I would have thought our conservatives would proclaim the saying “corruption doesn’t see color!” Not so much, eh?
Good to see you on record in support of naked corruption, all in fear of retribution for your comically sociopathic worldview. You know Mr. Tester, if you live in so much fear of what folks will do to you if you lose power, you might wanna rethink what you’re doing with that power.
The argument seems to be that government officials get a pass on ethical violations if a case can be made making an issue of them is to someone’s political advantage. Isn’t that a case of a political tail being allowed to wage the ethics dog? I our highly politicized environment, every issue we address has a political dimension. Does that mean no issue should ever be addressed?
I remember the numerous times I was on the other side of this argument. I vividly recall when Mrs. Clinton accepted vast fortunes from banks, for giving a few insightful after dinner remarks. I was against that and I was critical of it at the time. Thankfully, Mrs. Clinton never put me in the position of defending decades of unreported million dollar vacations and other assorted goodies from people with business before the government. In that my Republican friends, have now been placed in the postition of doing exactly that, they have my sympathy.
Cite the many 8-1 rulings where Justice Thomas was the outlier proving that he has no business being on the Court.
What would that prove? He is unethical and prone to multiple conflicts of interest. What does it matter that he is not the only one voting in a particular way?
Then the others are compromised also? The accusations say that his decisions are biased, which you can’t prove. It appears that the Justice could arrive at his conclusions in the same way as the other Jurists did.
The accusations say that he failed to make the disclosures of financial transactions he was required to make. The accusations also say that there is a conflict of interest if he should participate in any cases involving the inchoate insurrection and attempts to nullify the 2020 election because of his wife’s involvement.
Is this a joke? There are quite a number of them, most importantly every decision since Citizens United (2008) that involved the issue of public disclosure of funding. The Honorable Clarence T vehemently opposes that. Now, I wonder why he would have adopted that “outlier” position…
Yet other Jurists came to the same conclusion. Perhaps great minds think alike.
We are talking about the conservative majority on the US Supreme Court. “Great minds” are not involved.
Um, I WAS speaking of legal positions that only Clarence T endorsed. He has (over his sorry 30 year occupancy of Justice Thurgood Marshall’s seat) frequently taken positions that are so far-right only he endorsed them.
I agree that this circumstance has reduced somewhat now that several more far-right activist fanatics have been forced onto the Court, but Thomas as the lone dissenter still occurs, notably on the issue of requiring public disclosure of the wealthy who are funding some political matter or candidate. Like his benefactor. I guess I was unclear.
You don’t buy off a supreme court justice to flip his vote when it’s 8-0, you buy off a justice to get him to flip his vote when it’s 4-4.
I literally LOL’d at this. I don’t think that’s what you were going for.
I’m sure our right side friends would have no objection to Elena Kagan accepting a $500k vacation with George Soros. Nothing to see here, let’s move on…
Once again, no reply allowed to a conservative comment, so I will pose this question to Mr. Tester:
Are you saying that Justice Thomas did not commit these ethical violations? Or are you saying that his lapses shoiuld be overlooked because of his race?
Ethics: moral principles that govern a person’s behavior or the conducting of an activity
Can there be a violation of one’s own ethics by oneself?
In the context of governmental officials, “ethics” refers to an explicit code of conduct. While one’s personal ethics may not prevent one from excepting lavish vacations and sweetheart real estate deals from billionaire collectors of Nazi memorabilia, the code of ethics to be followed by a public official dictates that those gifts be disclosed. When one is subject to the ethics laws, one is not allowed to say that one’s personal ethics allow one to keep it a secret.
The personal ethics of one who is okay with the conflicts of interest in which Justice Thomas is involved should disqualify one from being elected hall monitor, let alone appointed to the Supreme Court, but that’s another matter.
“In the context of governmental officials, “ethics” refers to an explicit code of conduct.”
Please cite that explicit code of conduct, especially the portions referring specifically to the Supreme Court.
It’s called the Ethics in Government Act, P.L. 95–521. Beyond that, I see no reason for me to do your homework for you.
I could draw several conclusions about the conservative propensity to argue without informing themselves, but that would get me in trouble for using gender-neutral pronouns.
And add to that:
Abe Fortas, an LBJ SCOTUS appointee in 1965 who resigned in 1969 because it was “the honorable thing to do”, enabling Nixon to appoint his successor:
“Fortas remained an associate justice, but in 1969, a new scandal arose. Fortas had accepted a US$20,000 (equivalent to $148,000 in 2021[40]) retainer from the family foundation of Wall Street financier Louis Wolfson, a friend and former client, in January 1966. In return for unspecified advice, it was to pay Fortas $20,000 a year for the rest of Fortas’s life”
Clarence Thomas resign? Clarence Thomas could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and there would be no consequences.
“Clarence Thomas could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and there would be no consequences.”
While unlikely to happen, I disagree with your comment and suggest that there would be some consequence.
You’re probably right. Most conservatives wouldn’t recognize Justice Thomas and would see only a black man with a gun. He would be soundly thrashed and taken to the Tombs for a “confession.”
“Once again, no reply allowed to a conservative comment, so I will pose this question to Mr. Tester:”
And I thought this only happened to me!
Not to whine, but I hope our right side commentariat appreciates the deference they are shown in the name of MINNPOST neutrality. A Dennis or Joe post is something like what’s written on a stone tablet. Us poor, abused, left siders, not so much…
Note several things about the Fortas Affair:
1. Fortas resigned to let a Repub president nominate a new justice, even though Fortas was a Dem appointee.
2. The Congress was seriously considering impeachment of Fortas immediately upon the revelation of the payment.
3. The Congress was controlled by the party that had confirmed the resigning justice.
4. Fortas thought a scandal involving perceived financial impropriety could damage the integrity of the Supreme Court and the public’s perception of it, and he wanted to prevent that at all costs.
5. Not one of the above could possibly happen with Repub Clarence T and today’s Repubs in Congress.
All Thomas’s arguments currently being made about “no business before the Court” applied equally to the Fortas situation. All this shows how far we have been degraded from the Golden Age of American Democracy, which ended with the start of the disastrous Conservative Era in 1980.
I do appreciate that the personal insults and attacks are allowed by the regulars but it is hard to gauge how many comments are “moderated” by persons of any “side” since we don’t see those comments.
All I know for sure are my comments that never see the light of day and other comments that do. Leaving me with the impression that the left leaning MINNPOST sees a shortage of right side comments and goes the extra mile to tolerate things that are easily disposed of if submitted by one of us plentiful left side commenters. Let’s face it: Dennis and Joe are treasures to the process. Maybe they can find a few friends to join in to make it a more fair and balanced process.
How does one scrutinize that which does not exist?