ProPublica’s attack on Justice Thomas exposes biased treatment of SCOTUS.
ProPublica continues its relentless campaign against Justice Clarence Thomas, this time targeting his remarks at a non-profit seminar event in 2018. Their strategy is clear: ProPublica takes perfectly ethical behavior, adds insinuations, and falsely accuses Justice Thomas of acting unethically.
But it’s all a lie. Justice Thomas acted ethically and appropriately, just like other justices have done.
Contrary to ProPublica’s claims, the Koch Network event was not a fundraiser, and Justice Thomas had no involvement in raising funds for the group. It’s common for donors to attend events where justices speak, such as those organized by the American Constitution Society, the Federalist Society, or even university commencements.
ProPublica relies on unnamed organization staffers to make their case, but these sources are unreliable, as I have proven in another story. These staffers claim that Thomas’s appearance was meant to encourage donors to give more money. However, this does not mean Thomas had any role in fundraising. It’s normal for organizations to highlight the presence of influential figures to enhance their reputation and raise funds. This does not require a justice to recuse from a case involving that entity.
A recent AP story revealed that Justice Sonia Sotomayor attended a private luncheon at Clemson University, where $1 million-plus donors were invited. Donors had access to Sotomayor and took photos with her. Clemson University wanted to generate resources and raise awareness through Sotomayor’s visit.
The University of Colorado also rewarded donors with a special dinner with Justice Elena Kagan.
Inviting donors to events with dignitaries is a common practice that happens every day. It’s unreasonable to demand otherwise.
Similarly, schools and organizations often highlight the presence of presidents, justices, or other leaders to raise their profile and attract donations. However, these leaders have no involvement in fundraising efforts.
ProPublica conveniently ignores all of this to create a false narrative about Justice Thomas’s conduct. The truth is that he speaks at various events, just like other justices.
American University proudly highlights Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s commencement speech on its website. The goal is to raise awareness and increase donations and attendance at the school. However, this does not make Justice Jackson part of the fundraising effort.
Recusal is not required if a justice has given remarks at a school or organization that appears before the Supreme Court. The same applies to Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and many other justices who have appeared at various schools and groups. These attacks on Justice Thomas and demands for recusal are baseless and nonsensical.
Justice Thomas has only spoken at one Koch Network event in over 30 years on the Supreme Court. It’s absurd to suggest that he should recuse from any case involving this group.
Yet, ProPublica and the left are urging Thomas to recuse from the upcoming Loper Bright case, which involves the deference given to a federal agency’s regulations. Lawyers affiliated with the Koch Network are representing the party challenging the agency’s rule.
Let’s also consider Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s history of speaking at events where the host appeared before the Supreme Court. She gave remarks at an event cosponsored by the National Organization for Women (NOW) Legal Defense and Education Fund and never recused from cases involving NOW. Ginsburg even served on the board of this left-wing advocacy organization.
ProPublica conveniently omits these details and fails to mention Ginsburg’s close relationship with NOW. The left’s hypocrisy is evident in their demands for Thomas’s recusal while ignoring Ginsburg’s conduct.
ProPublica also fails to mention that Ginsburg attended an event at the partisan Woman’s National Democratic Club and accepted an award without disclosing it. There is no record of her recusing from cases involving the Democratic Party.
The left and so-called “ethics watchdogs” never had an issue with Ginsburg’s conduct or recusal when it came to these groups. They are now inventing a new recusal standard for Justice Thomas because they want to limit the number of justices on key cases that they fear losing. But their attempts to bully Justice Thomas will not succeed. He has always stood strong against baseless attacks, and he will continue to do so.
rnrn
How does ProPublica’s targeting of Justice Thomas undermine the integrity of our judicial system?
Been targeted by ProPublica because of his conservative ideology and his unwavering commitment to Constitutional principles. This relentless attack on his character is not only unfair, but it undermines the integrity of our judicial system.
It is important to note that justices are not fundraisers. They are appointed to interpret the law and make impartial decisions based on the Constitution. Attending events and giving speeches does not equate to involvement in fundraising efforts. Justices like Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson have all spoken at various events and it is wrong to single out Thomas for doing the same.
The insinuation made by ProPublica that Thomas’s appearance at the Koch Network event was meant to encourage donors to give more money is baseless and without evidence. It is common for organizations to highlight the presence of influential figures to enhance their reputation and attract donations, but this does not mean the individual has any role in fundraising.
By cherry-picking examples and ignoring the actions of other justices, ProPublica is creating a false narrative and attempting to tarnish the reputation of Justice Thomas. This targeted attack on a sitting Supreme Court justice is not only irresponsible journalism, but it also undermines public trust in our judicial system.
The demands for recusal based on these unfounded accusations are nonsensical. Justices have the responsibility to hear cases and make decisions based on the law, not on false accusations or insinuations. The calls for recusal are nothing more than an attempt to delegitimize Thomas’s important contributions to our legal system.
It is crucial that we recognize these baseless attacks for what they are and continue to support Justice Clarence Thomas in his commitment to upholding the Constitution. Our judicial system depends on the integrity and impartiality of our justices, and it is our duty to defend them against unfair and politically motivated attacks.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...