Hi 55 / Lo 41
|
Hi 55 / Lo 41 |
Student Publications
©1991-2007
Last modified:
Contact:
|
Volume 70, Issue 72,
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Opinion Thomas' gifts didn't breach ethics Jason Richardson
From natural disasters to international elections, the world was a busy place during the winter break. The news reports of potential unethical behavior by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas captured the nation's attention for a fleeting moment before it was washed away in a sea of tsunami coverage. Many Washington insiders speculate that President George W. Bush is planning to nominate Thomas to replace the aging Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Rehnquist was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in October and has been working part time at the court for more than two weeks. He is too ill to return to the bench. The 80-year-old justice holds the most powerful position in the judicial branch, and if Thomas does indeed succeed him, Thomas will be the first black man to hold the position. The Los Angeles Times reported in late December that according to documents filed by the justices on the Supreme Court, Thomas leads the court in accepting "lavish gifts" from private citizens. The report states that over the past six years, Thomas reported receiving gifts totaling $42,200, while O'Connor (the next highest on the list) only reported gifts totaling $5,025. Critics of Thomas use the large disparity in the reported gifts to impugn Thomas' ethical behavior. This is a serious charge to levy against Thomas, as it implies that Thomas has been willing to sell out justice for a relatively small fee. Closer examination of Thomas' gift declaration reveals that two of the gifts, a Bible once owned by 19th century abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass worth $19,000, and a bust of President Lincoln worth $15,000 make up the bulk of the gift values. Other gifts on the Thomas list include batteries provided by Thomas' law clerks, a leather jacket and a set of new tires. One must certainly chuckle at the notion that receiving a Bible is unethical. The gift was especially appropriate for Thomas, who considers Douglass a personal hero, even quoting him in his dissenting opinion in the recent Michigan Law School affirmative action case. Under current ethics laws, federal judges are free to accept gifts of unlimited value as long as the donor does not have business before the court. If a judge has a conflict of interest, he can recuse himself from the trial in order to protect the fairness of the proceeding. Critics of Thomas have failed to cite any instance in which Thomas failed to recuse himself from any proceeding in which a party to the dispute had given Thomas a lavish gift. Thomas, for better or for worse, is one of the most consistent and principled members of the Supreme Court, which is a nice way of saying that Thomas is considered the oddball. Academics who follow the Supreme Court continually chide Thomas for his dogged penchant for interpreting the Constitution from the Founders' perspective -- modern jurisprudence be damned. Given his consistency and fiery zeal toward a fundamentalist legal theory, it is highly improbable that Thomas would sell out for something as trivial as a new set of tires or a paid round of golf. Thomas may interpret the law in a manner which many find bizarre, antiquated or overly simplistic, but nothing on the record really indicates that his time on the Supreme Court has been tainted by unethical behavior. A Bible, a statue and a new set of tires do not a traitor make. Richardson, a columnist for The Daily Cougar,
Send comments to dccampus@mail.uh.edu |
To contact the
To contact other members
of
 |