Take a look Supreme Court Justice Clarence, Thomas. said Friday that he was not required to do. Disclose the trips that he trips that he and his were paid for by Republican Mega donor Harlan Crow. describing Crow, and his wife, Kathy, as quote, among our dearest Friends Thomas said in a statement that he was advised by colleagues on the nation's highest court and others in the federal judiciary. that quote this sort of personal Hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the court was not reportable. Thomas did not name The other justices or those in the Judiciary with whom he did. consult the nonprofit. investigative journalism organization. propublica reported Thursday, that Thomas. who has been a Justice for more than thirty one years. has for more than two decades. accepted luxury trips from Crow nearly every year. I do want to bring in add an ermine. a professor at the school of law at Northeastern University, to talk a little bit more about this here. Thank you so much for taking the time to join us. Thanks, good morning. of course. So when you first heard these reports, what were you thinking? What went through your mind? and how did they register in your mind here? Well, of course you're talking to a supreme court nerd. So I wasn't completely shocked. I've actually seen some coverage the LA Times had covered the relationship between Justice Thomas and crow in 2004. and the New York Times had done. So, in 2011, but I have to say the degree was surprising. the fact that it was annual that luxurious. nature. So I guess I would say, I wasn't shocked by the relationship but I did not know how frequently. he had gone on these trips. and just as a reminder, he had reported them, which drew the LA Times coverage. then he stopped, and I guess I assumed, oh, well, then he's not taking any more Gotcha. Yeah, a lot of people didn't really know what was going on. So just as Thomas release that rare statement where he said that he was not required to disclose the trips. What were your thoughts on that statement? And the fact that he chose to make one at all? Oh yeah, it was pretty defensive. you know, sort of I was told right. when I teach my students to write, I say you need to write more directly Who to what? right He didn't. he didn't name any one. He said I was told I didn't have to and again the fact that he reported it and then stopped reporting it after the LA Times coverage, they think is a little suspicious to me it. it showed that there was some pressure for him to say something. right? He didn't have to say anything. And I think this is something where he kind of got caught. and the recent, Revisions to the rules, right? Which just happened. are going to make it easy for him to say, And now, I'll make sure to do it. going forward because that's the new rule. And so the question becomes is there a possibility that Justice Thomas is actually impeached? He's actually removed from office as a result of all of this. so, I'm not, I don't usually get into bed attending, but I would say the odds are really long, I did see that representative costly of Cortez said, impeach him. but to be impeached, you need a majority in the house. The house is led by Republican. So, not in this. Congress. And by 2025 it's going to be old news, I think we know how the new cycle Works right? The so by that time, let's say Democrats took over so I would say Extremely unlikely. So from your legal perspective, and your legal knowledge, was Thomas actually required to let people know to disclose these trips Is that a requirement by law? so, this is what is so interesting. the ethics and government. Act of 1978 does say that each branch has to have their disclosure rules and this is where it's amazing. The Supreme Court kind of says they don't apply to them trust us. This is famous. So I would say technically legal but probably unethical. I remind me a little bit. if you remember is going to date Me Al Gore in the 1990s was raising money and Buddhist temples? and he said, there's no controlling legal. Authority. that said I couldn't do that. Well, okay. so I guess what I'm saying is technically legal but unethical. In what way, if any is this going to affect the public? image overall of the Supreme Court in general? the Supreme Court in general. I do think that when people find out that the justices don't really have to play by the same rules. as other federal employees. And by the way, including other federal judges, I think it surprises them. and I think it will increase. a push. for a bigger comprehensive ethics. Reform Act passed by Congress, so I could see. that happening And I also think it's going to make the public a lot more skeptical. If and when the court Rules. for, interest that might have relationships with the justices. All right, Dan, thank you so much for taking the time to join us here and kind of help break it down for us. Is there anything else that you want to add Before I Let You Go obviously it's a topic that a topic of people right now are discussing and scrutinizing and taking a very close look at I would say, look at organizations that are doing good work. So in addition to propublica, there's an organization called fix the court. run by someone named Gabe Roth and he's been watching this carefully. So want to learn more about these trips and ethics rules. Look at, look at fix the court. they're doing really good work. and you can inform yourself. All right, thank you again. for taking the time to join us
