Opinion: Can We Admit It - Most Americans Don’t Care If Justice Thomas Accepts Gifts, But What If It Was Pres. Biden?

PixabayPhoto byJulius Silver

The economic numbers for the first two years of Biden’s administration have been much better than the four years under Trump. Unemployment is down to very low numbers. Infrastructure improvements are kicking in producing new jobs and safer roads, bridges, and so on.

Social Security payments went up 8.7% for those who survive on these benefits. Our recent history of outsourcing jobs to China and other countries is starting to reverse itself with money from the government and private sector being invested in new manufacturing. And no new tax breaks were given to billionaires.

Not to say that everything done under the Trump administration was bad, just that Biden and company are doing a good job of it. The stats are there to judge either way.

All of this was put together and made possible over the past two years by the White House and Congress. Not without some fights, a lot of yelling and name-calling, and threats of future retribution.

Not to mention the impeachment of President Biden for reasons that have yet to be made up by a House majority leader and others who see it as their civic duty to play a political version of tit for tat.

And while all this good stuff is going on, Biden’s approval numbers continue to stay at lower levels proving what exactly?

That no matter what Biden and the Democrats do, it’s not going to be accepted by the right? That the media is having a difficult time conveying the truth because they’ve spent so much time in recent years dealing with fake news; making it, spreading it, and defeating it that they have forgotten how to just report the real thing?

And while the Biden Administration takes their good works and fair weather for the future on tour, a large body of Americans don’t seem to be bothered by Justice Thomas taking a massive array of gifts and favors, apparently believing that a Supreme Court Justice weighing matters that affect all Americans while receiving gifts and favors from those presenting case before the court, is not something that they should worry about.

Why is that?

Would you worry if when seeing a doctor and being told you’ll require a certain procedure, the doctor making this recommendation has been receiving payments in the form of paid trips to conferences and vacations to the Bahamas from a company who provides the machine you’ll be connected to?

Oh wait, that’s kind of happening right now with pharmaceutical companies providing such payments on a regular basis.

Alright, well what about your car or truck repairs? Would you be put off at all, if you saw your mechanic accepting cash from a Rep on the side to ensure certain parts were being installed in cars he was working on?

Would you now worry about what decisions your mechanic is making about your new Chevy?

When you visit your aunt or grandmother you bring a gift; some flowers, a cake, or a collectible thimble to add to her collection. It’s a common ritual and good manners to say thank you for the invite.

There’s no quid pro quo involved though. You’re bringing pastries to grandma because you love her and like doing it, not so she’ll use the good silverware or this time not use old meat for the lasagna.

But our courts and judicial system depend for their very existence on the assumption that all people will be treated fairly. That no party will receive special favor because their uncle is a contractor and the judge is in dire need of a new roof on his house.

There are rules of conduct and engagement that have been in place for as long as this country has existed.

If a judge is related to the defendant being brought to trial, then she must recuse herself. If a juror is second cousin to the plaintiff bringing suit against a car dealership, then he should be excused.

Otherwise, the system won’t work.

The question of innocence or guilt, right or wrong should not be judged on how much the buyer is willing to pay for an item. That system works in an auction. The set of gold watches goes to the highest bidder with safeguards firmly in place to prevent someone from cheating.

A buyer who pays $25,000 more for the house than the next bidder gets to live in the house, as long as the seller and real estate agent are not splitting the extra payment on the sly - which would be a no-no.

All these rules and systems are in place to keep the world of law and commerce fair and moving forward. But for some reason, several of the Supreme Court Justices, like Thomas and Alito feel that there really isn’t a problem with the acceptance of gifts.

As they see it, if a justice takes a trip to Alaska on a private jet and doesn’t report it, when the owner of the jet and lodge is going to have business before the court, there’s no visible conflict noted.

At what point would something like this be called into question?

Let’s say for kicks and giggles that a burglar comes before a judge and claims that he did not really steal the jewels from the house.

He says that a friend of his gave him the plans for the house and the alarm system and had it on good authority that the owner no longer wanted the jewels and was looking to get rid of them. Thus, the burglar was merely providing a service.

The burglar could claim this and believe it. As a judge could claim that a payment made for a nephew’s education was not a gift, was proper, and needn’t be reported. And that there was no conflict of interest.

One could claim anything but that’s what rules are for, so we are not spending countless hours arguing with others about whether we’re at fault for crashing into the back of a car. The law says the driver who did it is at fault.

Is this why only 43% of Americans polled believe what Justice Thomas did was wrong, or why 28% believe he did nothing wrong at all? Or why 67% of Republicans think he doing a good job even after voting for Dobbs and killing off Roe v. Wade and later Affirmative Action?

We always think it cool when approaching a toll booth at a bridge and being told that the driver ahead of us just paid our toll - that makes our day.

Good deeds and acts of kindness are always appreciated.

In years past, record labels, managers, and agents would slip a little money to a Radio DJ to get them to play an artist’s record. It was a fairly common practice that is now illegal.

Why? It was unfair. It gave certain record labels and artists a chance to leap ahead of other and sometimes better musicians who couldn’t compete.

Who suffered? The listening audience, who got to hear one tune 20 times a day and couldn’t find a great song from their favorite group.

Who suffers when gifts are accepted by sitting judges? Not hard to figure that one out regardless of the case, the industry, or the parties involved.

Why would a judge, a senator, or a surgeon at a hospital think it’s fine and normal to accept a steady stream of gifts and favors without anything in return?

If you worked at the county recorder's office and a customer slipped an envelope filled with hundreds across the counter, would you think it was just a tip for doing a good job? An acknowledgment for your years of service? Or would you think he wanted something in return?

But then the Supreme Court is like the Major Leagues, the NFL, or the NBA, only the best of the best play there. They know the laws and the rules. They don’t need to be coached or watched or told what to do. They never make mistakes.

That’s why we never see news reports about excessive rosin on baseballs or players using PEDs or stealing signs or deflating footballs or … oh, wait a minute, maybe that has happened after all.