Slate with a good summary of why the latest revelations about Clarence Thomas’s unreported gifts probably won’t matter, but should. “Before the outrage dries up, however, it is worth zeroing in on two aspects of the ProPublica report that do have lasting legal implications. First, the same people who benefited from the lax status quo continue to fight against any meaningful reforms that might curb the justices’ gravy train. Second, the rules governing Thomas’ conduct over these years, while terribly insufficient, actually did require him to disclose at least some of these extravagant gifts. The fact that he ignored the rules anyway illustrates just how difficult it will be to force the justices to obey the law: Without the strong threat of enforcement, a putative public servant like Thomas will thumb his nose at the law.”

+ “Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday that he did not disclose luxury travel paid for by a Republican donor because he was advised at the time that he did not have to report it.” (Who was his advisor, Bernie Madoff?)

+ The Los Angeles Times reported about Justice Thomas’ gifts 20 years ago. After that he stopped disclosing them.

+ Before the story fizzles out, let’s at least enjoy this Clarence Thomas Playlist.

Copied to Clipboard