|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
Odor in the Court
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Candidate
|
| Contributor | RP |
| Last Edited | RP Jan 05, 2005 07:58pm |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | Opinion |
| Media | Newspaper - Los Angeles Times |
| News Date | Tuesday, January 4, 2005 06:00:00 AM UTC0:0 |
| Description | Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas insists that because he reported the sometimes lavish gifts he has received over the years, he should be off the hook. Legally, perhaps, but not ethically.
Appearances matter, and Thomas' willingness to receive gifts, although they are allowable under federal law, suggests that he cares as little as his mentor, Antonin Scalia, about whether the court is perceived as a fair and impartial decision-maker. Moreover, that Thomas and other judges who have accepted large gifts can take refuge in the court's sly interpretation of federal ethics rules speaks to a fundamental problem with those rules.
Thomas has reaped a windfall of freebies, by judicial standards, since he joined the court in 1991. Between 1998 and 2003, the only period for which disclosure forms are on file at the court, Thomas accepted $42,000 in gifts, from a Bible valued at $19,000 to a set of tires. Sandra Day O'Connor is a distant second, reporting a paltry $5,025 during the same period, much of it in glass and crystal items.
|
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
