Injustice Clarence Thomas

Congressional Republicans like Monica de la Cruz and Speaker Kevin McCarthy are talking about impeaching President Biden as a way to deflect attention from all the indictments and very real corruption of the real estate con man who lost the popular vote twice and is once again the leading candidate for the Republican nomination. They’ve also now got their work cut out diverting the public’s eyes from the lengthening list of ethical and legal violations of several Republican members of the Supreme Court most especially Justices Clarence Thomas.

Research and reporting by ProPublica the nonprofit Pulitzer Prize-winning newsroom that investigates abuses of power has provided an ever lengthening list of corrupt behavior by Thomas.

During his 32 years on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas has enjoyed a lifestyle most Americans can only imagine which has been provided by a list ultra-wealthy corporate magnates and executives who have taken him on lavish vacations aboard their yachts, invited him to premium suites at sporting events and sent their private jets to pick him up. On more than one occasion, a 737 was sent just for him. The list of luxury is both longer and from a larger group than has been previously understood or reported. The broad range of leisure activities have been paid for by wealthy conservative benefactors who share the ideology that drives Thomas' judicial philosophy but didn’t have any connection to him until he gained his seat on the nation’s highest court.

Pro-Publica reports “At least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.”

None of the men who have provided the luxury travel - oil baron Paul Novelly, billionaire H. Wayne Huizenga, former Berkshire Hathaway executive David Sokol, and Texas real estate tycoon Harlan Crow - appear to have met Thomas prior to him taking a seat on the Supreme Court. Crow is the only one whose name appears in Thomas’ financial disclosures, where justices are required by law to publicly report most gifts. The total value of the undisclosed trips they’ve given Thomas since he was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1991, is difficult to measure. But it’s likely in the millions. All indications are that Thomas violated the law when he chose not to disclose flights, yacht cruises and expensive sports tickets, according to ethics experts.

Maybe more important is that even if reported the breadth of free vacation travel is well outside of judicial norms according to seven current and former federal judges appointed by both parties and other experts. Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge who served for years on the judicial committee that reviews judges’ financial disclosures said “In my career I don’t remember ever seeing this degree of largesse given to anybody, I think it’s unprecedented.”

Since Chief Justice John Robert’s can’t be bothered to take action of Thomas’ ethics and Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy isn’t about to impeach Thomas we’ll have to wait for Democrats to return to majority in the House. Sadly even that is unlikely to actually accomplish much as it takes 60 Senators to convict and its doubtful Democrats will gain such a majority in 2024.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - August 16, 2023

Public Dollars Belong in Public Schools Only

Next week is the Winter Solstice, the longest night of the year, unfortunately I’m feeling a truly long night lasting many years in terms of our government and political trends. Last week the radical right majority of the Supreme Court of the United States showed signs of once again reversing long held precedent to satisfy the demands of the most vocal Republican activists without regard to the consequences. This time the Court heard arguments in the case of Carson v. Makin; the question to be decided is whether the state of Maine is required to subsidize religious education. Based on the questions asked or not asked by the Republican appointed justices the consensus among Court watchers is that they’ll render a decision in favor of your tax dollars being funneled to religious schools.

While some readers may not see a problem with that as they send their children to religious schools and would like the extra funding or the lower tuition that might be available there are sound constitutional reasons for not changing the current state of affairs. The first amendment specifically states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” which given that later amendments made it clear that the constitution applies to state and local laws in addition to those passed by congress means that neither the state of Texas nor a county can favor a particular religion over another. Government funding religious activities or organizations has generally been viewed as a step toward establishing a state religion. Funding religious educational institutions with tax dollars comes under that heading.

Should the Supreme Court, as seems likely, decide that it’s fine for government to subsidize religious education realize that it can’t apply to just Christian schools. This is a case of “be careful what you wish for as you might get it”. Expect schools associated with any and all religions to demand their fair share, so look to Islamic schools asking for and getting the same subsidies. Don’t be surprised if a militant atheist group starts up a school and rightfully demands the same subsidies as well. Those on the radical right will first be stunned, then scream bloody murder that they never meant to subsidize everyone’s religious schools, just their own. I don’t mind eating popcorn while watching Republican heads explode but I’d much prefer that we continue the understanding that Constitution requires neutrality, as the Court held in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), “no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.”

The doctrine of “Separation of Church and State” has served this nation well for nearly 250 years and is central to our freedom. Our founders were well familiar with the consequences of religious wars such as Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), which devastated Germany and killed one third of its population. In our lifetimes we’ve seen sectarian violence in both southeastern Europe and the Middle East. Continuing to chip away at that separation as Republicans have for decades will harm us all by adding more friction to the already polarized political situation we now find ourselves in.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - December 15, 2021

Justice and Elections

 I had planned to write about the courts this week as a reminder that Texas is among the minority of states in that we elect our judges including at the appellate level. We therefore have both the opportunity and responsibility to determine who will make the final decisions in a wide range of legal cases, setting precedent and providing guidance to lower courts throughout the state. The death last week of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg brings that point home in ways that my words never could. It isn’t enough to just vote for Joe Biden and leave the rest of the ballot untouched. It’s important to vote in every race at every level.

The Court of Criminal Appeals is Texas highest court on criminal matters and has been dysfunctional for a decade. As examples please consider that a justice there once refused to consider a last minute death penalty appeal because the filing was delayed past office hours due to a printer breaking while it was being printed. Worse the same court has been slapped down by the Supreme Court of the United States twice on the same case for failing to do its job of reviewing the law regarding whether an intellectually disabled person should be executed. Judge Elizabeth Davis Frizell, Judge Tina Yoo Clinton, and Judge Brandon Birmingham are running to replace these lazy and apparently incompetent clods. All three are committed and experienced, with strong records of acting in the best interests of their respective communities. They deserve your support on election day.

In early 2016 when Justice Antonin Scalia suddenly died more than eight months before the election and President Obama had the responsibility to nominate a successor; our senator, John Cornyn, repeatedly stated that the next president should choose that nominee because it was an election year. Cornyn is quoted in numerous media sources and his own website saying: “It's not about the personality, it's about the principle ... that it's up to the American people in this next election, no matter who they choose, to make the nomination for this important seat on the Supreme Court.” “My view is that this is not about the potential nominee; it's about who chooses. And I believe strongly this should be a referendum on who chooses in November.” “I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President." Now, when early voting has already begun in some states and election day is less than seven weeks away; he has changed his tune retweeting Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s statement: "President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."

If John Cornyn has a shred of integrity he’ll rethink that and be guided by his own 2016 statements to allow the winner of the election to choose the next Supreme Court justice. You have the responsibility of reminding him of that by calling his office either in San Antonio at 210-224-7485 or in Washington, D.C. at 202-224-2934. Another way to put the fear of God in him would be to make a donation to his Democratic opponent, MJ Hegar, at https://mjfortexas.com/ .

Published in the Seguin Gazette - September 23, 2020

Trump Delivering on Promises is Double Edged Sword

Trump is delivering on or at least signing documents that appear to deliver on many of his campaign promises. He made promises to the evangelical Christians and ultra-conservatives which he’s delivering on with his nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be a justice on the Supreme Court. Not only is Gorsuch a man in the mold of Antonin Scalia which Trump promised his nominee would be, he’s also the mind behind the Hobby Lobby v. Burwell decision with gave corporations the right to be exempt from laws that offend their shareholders. Frankly I’ll believe that a corporation has religious rights when I meet one in church.

One of the defining reasons to incorporate your business is to protect yourself from legal responsibility for actions and liabilities of the business. If you incorporate your business you have created a legal entity with the rights and responsibilities to engage in business and if the entity is sued the owners are not a party to the lawsuit in most cases. Gorsuch’s decision bridges the gap between the owner and the corporation enabling the owner to claim that the business shares their religious convictions and therefore should be exempt from providing insurance coverage the provides contraception. In my view bridging that gap pierces the “corporate veil” which protects shareholders and may one day come back to haunt businesses due to the loss of protection offered by it.

Trump also recently announced that his administration would “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches from engaging in political activity at the risk of losing their tax-exempt status. Such a repeal of the law would require approval by Congress. Currently certain tax-exempt organizations — in this case, churches — are not allowed to openly endorse or campaign for political candidates. If they do, under existing law, they risk losing the benefits of their tax-exempt status. Should Trump get his way he’ll be able to honestly say he’s delivered on another campaign promise to evangelicals who have chafed under this restriction for quite some time. There are even organizations of lawyers who among other issues have repeatedly attempted to get this restriction overturned so his success would be met with great joy in some circles. I have to wonder though if it isn’t a double edged sword in the sense that it will also embolden and empower churches which take opposing views on many issues dear to the hearts of the evangelicals Trump seeks to reward for their support during the election. How will they feel when an Imam at a nearby mosque calls for followers to vote for a candidate opposed by their church?

Nominating Betsy DeVos to be Secretary of Education is an indirect reward to the evangelicals who supported Trump in that she’s a strong supporter of school vouchers which she and others want to allow parents to use in order to fund their child’s tuition to private religious schools. This is a very contentious issue since having the government directly fund religious education seems to violate the First Amendment by favoring religion with our tax dollars. I know a lot of very religious folks feel strongly in favor of this because it would either save them a lot of money they’re currently spending or would enable them to send their children to such a school. I have to wonder if even more voters won’t be up in arms when they learn that those funds must also be provided to members of other faiths and they see a news story about a taxpayer funded madrassa right here in the United States just like in Afghanistan.