5 ms·

Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition

15 points by smugma 3y ago

smugma 3y ago
“Tuition at the boarding school ran more than $6,000 a month. But Thomas did not cover the bill. A bank statement for the school from July 2009, buried in unrelated court filings, shows the source of Martin’s tuition payment for that month: the company of billionaire real estate magnate Harlan Crow.”
- jacobn 3y ago
  Is that the nephew he didn’t adopt? I.E. a child he was caring for, but not his actual son? Since when is helping an orphan a cause for outrage?
  - smugma 3y ago
    “D.C. Thomas had taken legal custody of Martin when he was 6 years old and had recently told an interviewer he was “raising him as a son.”” “Thomas gained legal custody of Martin and became his legal guardian around January 1998, according to court records.”
    - jacobn 3y ago
      So not his son and no legal reporting requirement then?
  - kmos17 3y ago
    This country is in real trouble when there is such flagrant incontrovertible reporting of corruption at the highest level and we can read comments like this just because the person accused is in your political camp.
    - jacobn 3y ago
      The reporting is not incontrovertible. It’s biased and heavily politically motivated. Undermining SCOTUS because they don’t like the 6-3 majority (which I’m not a huge fan of either) is sacrificing the country for their short sighted political goals.
tomohawk 3y ago
He also "conspired" with Crow to help a penniless widow. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/breaking-harlan-crow-and-clarence-thomas-once-conspired-to-aid-a-penniless-widow/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/breaking-harlan-crow-a...
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  Is the National Review publishing Babylon Bee style satire now? That's a very weird article.
aksss 3y ago
Well, not his "child", I think it was a grand-nephew that he was the legal guardian of. Small point, but significant to disclosure requirements which focus on immediate family members.[1] I tend to think this whole string of ethics attacks on Thomas by the legislature and amplified by select media outlets is a convenient distraction from the conversation about insider stock trading in House and Senate (for which, btw, AOC and Gaetz have cosponsored a bill to ban, and deserves far more visibility and support).[2] Really anything those two can agree on is worth attention, imo. Not saying the criticisms of all justices don't have merit, though I think it's a minority of the balloons being floated that have any real "there" there. Avoiding even the "appearance of conflict" is the right bar, and virtually none of the justices have done a stellar job at this. That said, in terms of ethics crises, I'm far more concerned about insider trading in the Legislative branch. After that, probably pay-to-play schemes in the Executive branch and the revolving door with lobbyists. Somewhere far below that - but not at bottom - book deals and vacations for SCOTUS justices. The cynical side of me suspects attempts to delegitimize the institution correlate with balance of Court ATM and the displeasure of the loudest voices on the matter, rather than objective concern. Valid? Yes. Deserving the bandwidth of zero-sum press coverage compared to other high-profile ethics issues implicating the very people driving the criticism of Court ethics right now? Meh, not so much. [1] https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/04/justice-thomas-long-ago-explained-his-perspective-on-disclosure-laws/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/04/justice-thomas-long-ago... [2] https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3984143-ocasio-cortez-gaetz-part-of-group-introducing-lawmaker-stock-trading-ban/ https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3984143-ocasio-cortez-gae...
- smugma 3y ago
  Article title his “a child” not “his child”. No need to put child in quotes. The article opens with: In 2008, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas decided to send his teenage grandnephew to Hidden Lake Academy
  - aksss 3y ago
    Mmm.. I think the headline is misleading. There are really only two ways that headline would be commonly understood: * CT had a child [of his] in private school. * CT [gave birth to] a child in private school. There are more responsible ways to write that headline, to be sure. Few people will care to read the article compared to the headline. Who has two thumbs and didn’t read the article?

15 points by smugma 3y ago

“Tuition at the boarding school ran more than $6,000 a month. But Thomas did not cover the bill. A bank statement for the school from July 2009, buried in unrelated court filings, shows the source of Martin’s tuition payment for that month: the company of billionaire real estate magnate Harlan Crow.”

jacobn 3y ago
Is that the nephew he didn’t adopt? I.E. a child he was caring for, but not his actual son? Since when is helping an orphan a cause for outrage?
- smugma 3y ago
  “D.C. Thomas had taken legal custody of Martin when he was 6 years old and had recently told an interviewer he was “raising him as a son.”” “Thomas gained legal custody of Martin and became his legal guardian around January 1998, according to court records.”
  - jacobn 3y ago
    So not his son and no legal reporting requirement then?
- kmos17 3y ago
  This country is in real trouble when there is such flagrant incontrovertible reporting of corruption at the highest level and we can read comments like this just because the person accused is in your political camp.
  - jacobn 3y ago
    The reporting is not incontrovertible. It’s biased and heavily politically motivated. Undermining SCOTUS because they don’t like the 6-3 majority (which I’m not a huge fan of either) is sacrificing the country for their short sighted political goals.

tomohawk 3y ago

He also "conspired" with Crow to help a penniless widow. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/breaking-harlan-crow-and-clarence-thomas-once-conspired-to-aid-a-penniless-widow/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/breaking-harlan-crow-a...

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
Is the National Review publishing Babylon Bee style satire now? That's a very weird article.

aksss 3y ago

Well, not his "child", I think it was a grand-nephew that he was the legal guardian of. Small point, but significant to disclosure requirements which focus on immediate family members.[1] I tend to think this whole string of ethics attacks on Thomas by the legislature and amplified by select media outlets is a convenient distraction from the conversation about insider stock trading in House and Senate (for which, btw, AOC and Gaetz have cosponsored a bill to ban, and deserves far more visibility and support).[2] Really anything those two can agree on is worth attention, imo. Not saying the criticisms of all justices don't have merit, though I think it's a minority of the balloons being floated that have any real "there" there. Avoiding even the "appearance of conflict" is the right bar, and virtually none of the justices have done a stellar job at this. That said, in terms of ethics crises, I'm far more concerned about insider trading in the Legislative branch. After that, probably pay-to-play schemes in the Executive branch and the revolving door with lobbyists. Somewhere far below that - but not at bottom - book deals and vacations for SCOTUS justices. The cynical side of me suspects attempts to delegitimize the institution correlate with balance of Court ATM and the displeasure of the loudest voices on the matter, rather than objective concern. Valid? Yes. Deserving the bandwidth of zero-sum press coverage compared to other high-profile ethics issues implicating the very people driving the criticism of Court ethics right now? Meh, not so much. [1] https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/04/justice-thomas-long-ago-explained-his-perspective-on-disclosure-laws/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/04/justice-thomas-long-ago... [2] https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3984143-ocasio-cortez-gaetz-part-of-group-introducing-lawmaker-stock-trading-ban/ https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3984143-ocasio-cortez-gae...

smugma 3y ago
Article title his “a child” not “his child”. No need to put child in quotes. The article opens with: In 2008, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas decided to send his teenage grandnephew to Hidden Lake Academy
- aksss 3y ago
  Mmm.. I think the headline is misleading. There are really only two ways that headline would be commonly understood: * CT had a child [of his] in private school. * CT [gave birth to] a child in private school. There are more responsible ways to write that headline, to be sure. Few people will care to read the article compared to the headline. Who has two thumbs and didn’t read the article?