The Supreme Court preserves democracy by earning public confidence, as Justice Stephen Breyer told a packed hall last week in Washington, DC. But his lecture and book, "Making Our Democracy Work," glossed over such controversies as the "Virginia and Clarence Thomas Bought by Billionaires" ad released this week.

::::::::

The Supreme Court fulfills its vital role in preserving democracy by earning public confidence, as Justice Stephen Breyer told a packed hall last week in Washington, DC.

But his lecture and book, Making Our Democracy Work, glossed over current controversies, such as the "Virginia and Clarence Thomas Bought by Billionaires" ad shown above, which was released this week by the progressive group Protect Our Elections.

My purpose here is to illustrate how one of the court's top ambassadors  responds to specific allegations of corruption that are seldom raised widely in official Washington because the court has such power. This column therefore focuses more on Breyer's responses than the evidence, which is best available via the links below citing work of those investigating this topic.

Fresh from a National Press Club lecture the previous night where retired federal judge Lillian McEwen said Justice Clarence Thomas should resign on grounds of corruption, I asked Breyer during Q&A how the court decides on its responses to inquiries on such matters. I identified myself as reporting on this year's allegations of bribery and false statement by Thomas, and said I've received no response from Thomas on my request for comment.

Breyer, above, responded that he guides the court's spokeswoman when a matter pertains to himself, and has seven volumes of ethics books and also trusted ethics advisers that he consults when difficult issues arise.

When a follow-up questioner asked Breyer about abortion, he ducked by joking, "We've already had a reporter gently try to bring up something," and smiling as he waved his hands at his side, as if to shoo away a beggar.

Breyer's inclination to gloss over current controversy at the forum was one way to preserve the court's stature. Another has been his high-minded 2010 book, a national best-seller that was strongly praised by the New York Times, Washington Post and other establishment opinion-leaders and information gatekeepers.

But not everyone was bedazzled. McEwen, author of DC Unmasked and Undressed this year, a former law professor and my guest at this event, told me it seemed like a warmed-over speech for a civics class, not one for a sophisticated DC audience.

The lecture did not address the revelations by Common Cause and others this year of false statements by Thomas in his sworn annual disclosure statements to hide an estimated $1.6 million in reportable income and gifts for him and his wife, Virginia. Forty-six House Democrats  have called for a House impeachment probe.

Protect our Elections.org is a progressive group that says it has been working with the FBI since July on an investigation of Thomas and his wife. This week the group published the ad above, headlined, "Clarence and Virginia Thomas: Bought By Billionaires." The text is about David Koch, at far right, and Harlan Crow, shown between the Thomas couple. The ad caption says:

Virginia, Harlan, Clarence and David have been having a good laugh at our expense. How much longer will we let this go on? America's citizens have had it with people in power who violate the law. That includes Clarence Thomas, who has used his position as a Supreme Court Justice to flout the law and enrich himself, his wife and their cronies through corrupt backroom deals with billionaires Harlan Crow, and Charles and David Koch.

This was precisely the kind of controversy for which I have sought responses from those named in the ad and their representatives.

So far, the best I can get are a few quotes recycled from other news reports. The Supreme Court's spokeswoman told one reporter that the Thomas false statements on his judicial disclosure forms were "inadvertent." Thomas told a conservative audience in February that he and his wife would continue to fight for liberty, as I reported earlier this week here. I'll update this report if the court, Thomas, Crow or the Koch brothers respond to my comment requests.

The Protect Our Elections allegations are amplified in its 12-page memo it says it shared with the FBI, and in my video interview of McEwen, below on Oct. 26, Clarence Thomas--perjurer, tax cheat, fanatic, party operative--has GOT TO GO, declares Judge Lillian McEwen (his former lover). The allegations against Thomas are reflected also in the request by congressional Democrats for a Thomas impeachment inquiry, as described in Democrats Ramp Up Calls For Ethics Probe Of Clarence Thomas.

McEwen was a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission judge for 12 years before her retirement five years ago, with jobs that included also extensive defense counsel work that she described as providing insight into the criminal mindset. 

She said in her Press Club lecture I organized that every federal judge knows that he or she must fill out financial disclosure forms honestly under pain of prosecution for false statement.

Therefore, she concluded, Thomas illustrated a criminal mentality by 13 years of hiding spousal income and gifts after filling out the forms accurately during his first years on the bench.  

She described Thomas further as a "best friend" when they dated for five years in the early 1980s. But she said he lost his way in the mid-1980s and so she decided to break up. She added that no one has contradicted or even rebutted any part of her memoir, which is primarily about her youth and early adulthood in Washington, DC. The book describes positive and negative attributes of Thomas, including his keen interest in pornography in ways he specifically denied during his 1991 Senate confirmation hearing to counteract Anita Hill's testimony.

More generally, the 20th anniversary this month of the 52-48 Senate confirmation has seen many commentaries about the impact on the nation of the Thomas lifetime appointment. My Oct. 27 column, Thomas Must Resign, Says Former Judge, Lover, provided an extensive appendix of commentary pro and con. More generally, public approval of the Supreme Court is sinking, according to a recent poll showing just a 46 percent approval rating.

Breyer intended his lecture and book for audiences of non-lawyers in order to sustain support for the court's work. He emphasizes key cases, primarily from the distant past. More currently, the Democratic former appellate judge and Harvard Law School professor describes his dissents from the jurisprudence of "originalism." Its backers ostensibly try imagine how the Founding Founders would react to a case in an era of  eloquent nation-builders and also of slave-holding and public floggings. The best-known originalists are his fellow associate justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Breyer emphasizes that the justices work affably together despite differences. "We get on pretty well," he said of his experience since his appointment in 1994. "I've never heard one judge make a slighting remark" he said of their conferences, and there have been "no words raised in anger."

Beyond the court's collegiality, he emphasized that reasonable minds can disagree on cases complex enough to reach the Supreme Court. One example he cited in his vigorous and entertaining discourse was when national security conflicts with privacy or First Amendment speech rights. "The tough cases," he said, "are not right against wrong, but right against right."

However, these are hard times. Aside from the kind of widespread economic disaster not seen in this country since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has a rare, highly visible partisan split, five Republicans and four Democrats, who often vote differently on major decisions in essence on party lines. One was the Citizens United decision in 2010, which upended federal election donation limits on corporations and unions. This enabled Thomas to reward the right-wing plaintiff Citizens United, which had run an ad campaign in 1991 against Senate Democrats helping achieve his confirmation, as I noted earlier this week.

Breyer, congruent with his erudite and genteel approach, downplayed the significance of these 5-4 votes, saying they are only on about 20 to 25 per cent of cases.

Yet the big decisions threaten to change outcomes of federal elections or such major legislation as the Obama health care law. Let's add to that the incendiary race, sex, abortion, religion, death penalty and corruption factors swirling around the votes of Clarence Thomas.

Breyer suggests the public be happy that our society is not resolving our differences by violence outside a legal framework. But with all due respect to his brilliant mind and career, commoners might ask what kind of "law" protects the law-givers from scrutiny in a democracy?

The courageous Lillian McEwen, among others, has dared to say that Thomas perjured himself to get on the court and has disgraced himself since by threatening the well-being of most in the public by selling out his vote to his rich backers.

"He's been rewarding his friends," she said at the Press Club, "and punishing his enemies." Her word is hardly the final one, of course, and in fact most law professors, reporters and others in our timid watchdog groups can sense the professional danger for themselves in pursuing these kinds of inquiries.

And so it's up to the rest of us to support those authorities willing to get to the facts about the allegations of corruption. Doubtless in ways uncomfortable for those in power, this advances the goal of what Breyer himself described as the court's noble mission: "Making our democracy work."

Authors Website: http://www.justice-integrity.org

Authors Bio:

Andrew Kreig is an investigative reporter, attorney, author, business strategist, radio host, and longtime non-profit executive based in Washington, DC.

His most recent book is "Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and Their Masters," the first book about the Obama administration's second term. The book grew out of his work leading the Justice Integrity Project, a non-partisan legal reform group that investigates official misconduct.

In a diverse career, he has advocated for the powerful, and investigated Mafia chiefs, Karl Rove, and top Obama administration officials. The major "Who's Who" reference books have listed him since the mid-1990s.

He holds law degrees from Yale and the University of Chicago, and a b.a. in history from Cornell. His experience includes work as law clerk to a federal judge, as an attorney at a national law firm, and as president/CEO of a worldwide high-tech trade association.

The contact for interviews, lectures, and review copies is Mary Byers at Eagle View Books. The author has lectured on five continents, held research fellowships at three major universities, and appeared on more than 100 radio, television and cable news shows as an expert commentator.