Suppose she had testified in 1991 that she accompanied Thomas to New York's Plato's Retreat sex club? She described that along with multiple Thomas sex partners on other occasions, and lots more in her memoir. But that's not what Biden and his colleagues wanted. Furthermore, the Senate avoids post-confirmation scrutiny of judges suspected of perjury under a constitutional separation of powers rationale. When it's over it's over, right?
Even so, commoners unschooled in the law's fine points might get confused: Do Senators truly care about good government if they let nominees perjure themselves? Should those winning federal judgeships by such chicanery also bask in lifetime appointments with no real oversight? Should they be immune from scrutiny even if suspected of improper, lavish gifts and family jobs -- especially if the facts are hidden to litigants and everyone else by means of misleading, sworn disclosure statements?
On a routine basis, Thomas and his colleagues piously approve long prison sentences for others who mis-state or overlook such disclosures on home mortgage papers, income tax returns or similar papers. Should judges be exempt even from investigation for similar conduct?
Let's look ahead: To commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the Thomas confirmation hearings over the next few weeks, we can expect many accounts of his career. Some will be enlivened, perhaps unfairly, by nasty comments about him from academic, feminist or political critics.
Thomas and his allies will doubtless complain but can afford to shrug it off. The odds are overwhelming that Washington's thought-leaders will raise a few eyebrows over allegations against him, but ultimately will close ranks with one of their own, as usual, on a bipartisan basis. Many big-time Democrats and their backers, after all, have important business before the Supreme Court.
Still, keep an eye on the congressional letter sent Sept. 29, 2011 to Duff at the administrative office at the Judicial Conference.
Despite the name and address at the top of the page, the 20 congressional members probably meant to send their letter to a different court. Ordinarily, that other body's members are far too distracted and too disrespected these days to have much impact. But the other tribunal has, at least theoretically, even greater potential power than the ones run by Chief Justice Roberts and his colleagues.
It's called the court of public opinion.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
7
6
5
