Michael Ponsor, a Senior U.S. District Court judge in Massachusetts, has written an op ed for the New York Times titled A Federal Judge Asks: Does the Supreme Court Realize How Bad It Smells?
Ponsor relates a couple of incidents from his time on the bench. Once he was having a casual conversation with an attorney who mentioned that he had two tickets to a Major League baseball game that he couldn't use. He asked if Judge Ponsor would like them. Even though he would have loved to take his young child to the game, Ponsor said no even though there was a good chance that the tickets wouldn't be used if he didn't take them. He later talks about another case:
... I issued a decision reversing the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits to an older plaintiff. I was in our clerk’s office one day when the man and his wife approached me with a package. He had a woodworking hobby, and inside the package was an exquisitely crafted oak pencil case with bronze hinges. My ruling had made a big difference for them, and they wanted to extend this modest, personal gesture of gratitude. Again, they were obviously not being underhanded. Their lawsuit was over, and this was probably the last they would ever see of me. Nevertheless, as my police officer friends tell me, the road to perdition starts with a free cup of coffee. As politely as I could, I turned the pencil case down. It still pains me to remember their embarrassed, crestfallen faces. ...
Contrast Judge Ponsor's appropriate behavior with that with some Supreme Court Justices who have accepted costly vacations and other valuable considerations from people whom they knew had an interest in the work of the Court. Ponsor's the kind of judge I know. Clarence Thomas (to pick the most prominent example) is something else.
If you're an attorney and you're thinking, "What Justice Thomas has done is wrong but he's a reliable right wing vote on the Supreme Court so we can't force him out of office while a Democrat is in the White House", what is wrong with you? What Thomas has done is what judicial corruption looks like. You know that as well as me. You'd be apoplectic if a Justice appointed by a Democrat had done this and I'd be with you. We can't accept this behavior from any Supreme Court justice, ever.
16 comments:
Besides Thomas, don't forget Sonia Sotomayor.
Anonymous said...
Besides Thomas, don't forget Sonia Sotomayor.
10:59 AM, July 18, 2023
I love how people play the "what about" game, as if that makes some sort of point. Here's the thing that the red hat crowd doesn't understand: team blue doesn't care who gets held accountable for corruption.
So, Sotomayor has dirt? Fine, impeach her too. Nobody "on the other side" cares.
Either you have principles or you don't.
Do you seriously think Judge Thomas was influenced by anything he received? Or Sotomayor or any other Supreme Court justices?
I agree that it looks bad and should be addressed with some kind of rules.
Seriously? The allegations against Justice Sotomayor are troubling, but are nothing compared to what (In)Justice Thomas has done.
Impeach them both? Sure, sentence to life the thief who steals a million dollars as well as Jean Valjean for stealing a loaf of bread. That's fair.
and, yes, it's very clear who has principles and who doesn't.
@3:49
I doubt it was ever quid-pro-quo, but yes I definitely think Thomas was influenced by being treated by wealthy friends for decades. Sotomayor's issue as I understand it is allegedly pressuring colleges and libraries to buy her books. That raises some ethical concerns, and I fully support investigating it further, but as it stands it is really not in the same ballpark even in the allegations are true. That said, I would certainly support punishing them both if it actually was part of an ethics reform. The appearance of impropriety is more damaging, often, than the impropriety itself.
This is all about politics. We are focused on these things while many other more serious things are being swept under the rug - such as a president who, as vice president accepted millions in bribes from foreign entities. Now, which is more of a threat to our national security?
Considering how quiet and mouse-like all the "reasonable Republicans" that I keep hearing are out there have been for the last 7 years, I doubt they'd pipe up now.
Lavish gifts
Don’t influence
My jurisprudence
When my vote benefits
Those who give me gifts
That’s just coincidence
I feel no obligation
From lavish free vacations
So trust in me, just in me
Not the appearance of impropriety
Or the erosion of legitimacy
Shut your eyes and trust in me
Trust the Supreme Court as much as vending machine sushi.
Anonymous said...
This is all about politics. We are focused on these things while many other more serious things are being swept under the rug - such as a president who, as vice president accepted millions in bribes from foreign entities. Now, which is more of a threat to our national security?
Ah! Another player enters the game, with a slightly more sophisticated "whatabout" gambit. Here's the thing: Investigate Biden too then! If the evidence points to something, then let's impeach him too!
See how easy it is to have principles?
I think you should read this: https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evaluate_news/infographic
@1133 Can you name any cases where Supreme Court justices made such decisions? If not, what's your point?
I don’t think you need to show the individual giving expensive gifts to the Justice personally had a case before the Court. A Court ruling for a different party can benefit the gift giver by changing rules that broadly apply to many.
@1053. True. But is there a decision that Justice Thomas decided other than what one would expect from him that benefitted one of the gift givers some way?
Agree that it looks bad but I've seen nothing that a decision was affected.
@12:50
Good point. I think you would need more research on that. For instance, Harlan Crowe, the most generous gift giver, was on the board of directors of the American Enterprise Institute and a co-founder of the Club for Growth. How does Thomas' voting record on the Court correspond with the policy wish lists for those organizations?
@1159 If a Supreme Court Judge received gifts from someone that you wouldn't expect, say Planned Parenthood to Judge Thomas, and then he voted on an abortion case in a way that is totally unexpected due to his prior votes, I could see where that would be very questionable. But if some prolifers treated him to a great vacation I doubt that the gift would affect him at all, after all he would have been inclined to agree with them anyway.
I think ethics reform is needed in any case.
Post a Comment