In their desperate attempt to get the originalist Supreme Court justices off cases concerning former President Trump, the Democratic Party has reached a new low.
After attacking Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito for the flags, including the historic "Appeal to Heaven" flag, his wife flew outside their vacation home, the Democrats are now focusing their attention on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas once again.
Thomas has already been attacked by the Democrats for participating in a Supreme Court case over former President Trump's eligibility for the ballot under the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause, due to his wife Ginni Thomas's support for Trump's claims of a stolen 2020 election, according to The Hill.
Top Democrats like Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin and Reps. Dan Goldman, Bill Pascrell, and Jasmine Crockett have demanded Thomas recuse himself from the case.
Now, Democrats are attacking Thomas over three trips he took on the private jet of the Texas billionaire Harlan Crow that he, allegedly, did not disclose, according to The New York Times.
One problem with this allegation: The rule about disclosing gifts of personal hospitality from friends was made last year. The trips, however, were all taken between 2017 and 2021, when there was no such rule in place about personal hospitality.
It's like ticketing yesterday's drivers for going over a speed limit sign installed today.
What would the Democrats have to say if Republicans went after a black, left-leaning justice for rule violations that took place before there even was a rule?
We'd hear them cite everything from Jim Crow to vagrancy laws.
The undisclosed trips include a 2017 flight from St. Louis to Montana near Glacier National Park with a stop in Dallas, where Crow resides, a day trip to Thomas's hometown of Savannah, Georgia in 2019, and a 2021 day trip from Washington D.C. to San Jose, California.
Thomas says he was advised that he did not need to report gifts of personal hospitality from friends who had no matters before the Supreme Court. At the time of the trips in question, there existed a "personal hospitality exemption" in the disclosure rules that allowed justices to accept hospitality from friends without reporting it.
However, that exemption was eliminated in new disclosure requirements implemented last year, which Justice Thomas states he is now complying with fully.
Carrie Severino, president of Judicial Network explained it on CNN, calling it, "Another insane, hamfisted attempt to smear Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, whoever the left is worried is going to have the next important decision."
"This is literally nothing new," Severino said. "We know that until 2023, personal hospitality was not something, the judicial conference itself said, should be disclosed. That's why Justice Breyer who took at least 233 trips, 68 of them overseas didn't have to disclose them. Justice Ginsberg, took a 157 trips, 28 of them overseas, again all of these from private hospitality, megadonors for the Democrats in their case, didn't have to disclose them."
"This is an attempt to sort of change the rules after the fact and try to make Justice Thomas look bad," she added.
Another day, another insane attempt by the Left to smear Justice Thomas with a nothingburger.
Until 2023, the Judicial Conference itself said personal hospitality shouldn't be disclosed.
That’s why Justice Breyer — who took at least 233 trips, 68 of them overseas — didn’t have… pic.twitter.com/7pFBO0iEkR
— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) June 13, 2024
Thomas' lawyer, Elliot S. Berke, told the New York Times that, since the rule change, "Justice Thomas has fully complied with the new disclosure requirement."
The Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Richard Durbin stated this "makes it crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct."
In November, the Supreme Court issued its first-ever "Code of Conduct" following months of pressure from Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats pushing for new ethics laws governing the high court, according to Fox News.
The Code consists of five "canons" or principles that justices must follow.
Two of the new canons appear to be direct responses to recent controversies. One restricts justices from using court resources or staff for non-official activities like book promotions after reports that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor's staff encouraged purchases of her book.
Another canon limits justices' ability to accept compensation or reimbursements for travel expenses from sources that could appear to influence their duties. It states expense reimbursements should only cover actual costs and must come from proper sources.
The Code overall attempts to set some ethical guardrails, though it remains unclear if it has enforcement mechanisms. It states all justices have agreed to comply with federal financial disclosure laws.
While no one is arguing that greater transparency can only help secure an independent judiciary, criticizing or castigating a judge for actions that were permissible under the rules of the past sets a concerning precedent and appears -- rather obviously -- politically motivated.
While now revised, the "personal hospitality exemption" Thomas relied on was an accepted standard that had governed the conduct of Supreme Court justices for years. To condemn him now for following those previous protocols looks and smells like highly partisan targeting.
Such backward-thinking approaches should tell you everything you need to know about Democrats and the modern left.
