Clarence Thomas scandal proves law is 'just a suggestion' for powerful: columnist

The scandal around Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' secret gifts and real estate deals with billionaire GOP megadonor Harlan Crow doesn't just reflect poorly on the justice, but also has grave implications for equality of justice under law, wrote columnist Jamelle Bouie for The New York Times on Tuesday.

"The idea that Thomas will face any penalty, much less an official investigation by the Supreme Court, is obviously wish-casting. The politics of the court, the lack of any internal check on the court’s members and the general unwillingness of Congress to challenge the court’s power — or even scrutinize its affairs — mean Thomas can act with relative impunity," wrote Bouie.

"And even if he couldn’t, even if there were meaningful and politically feasible consequences for misconduct among members of the Supreme Court — impeachment is practically a dead letter — there’s the fact that the law is simply more forgiving of the rich and the powerful."

"If Thomas were an ordinary federal employee — or even an ordinary federal judge — he would probably have to answer to authorities for his failure to disclose income from a real estate sale for nearly a decade," Bouie continued.

"As it stands, it is apparently enough for him to amend the form in question, as he did in 2011 after he failed to report the more than $686,000 his wife, Ginni Thomas, earned from the Heritage Foundation between 2003 and 2007. When asked to report his spouse’s income, Thomas had checked the box labeled 'none.' (Thomas has in fact let it be known that he intends to amend his disclosure forms to account for the 2014 real estate transaction.)"

Thomas has defended his actions in part by arguing Crow had no business before the Court, so there was no conflict. However, while Crow technically was never a plaintiff or defendant in a case heard by the Court, he sat on the board of two right-wing think tanks whose members sometimes filed briefs with the Court.

Ultimately, Bouie wrote, a major problem is that if the Court is accepting gifts from ultra-wealthy businessmen, it creates the appearance those businessmen can be treated differently under law than anyone else.

"The United States is a nation of laws, and not men, if you are an ordinary citizen," concluded Bouie. "However, with a little money and a little power — or at least a seat on the Supreme Court — the law becomes less of a directive and more of a suggestion."