The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Do Supreme Court Justices Have Real Friends?
A response to Josh.
I had a different reaction than Josh Blackman did to the comment of the Supreme Court's Public Information Officer Patricia McCabe about Beyoncé—it struck me as likely just McCabe's own well-meaning-but-odd comment, rather than evidence of a nefarious quid pro quo between Beyoncé and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—but I wanted to focus instead on a comment Josh makes that strikes me as particularly unlikely to be true:
For all the outrage about Justice Thomas, no one doubts that he and Harlan Crow are genuine friends. They met nearly three decades ago, and have forged a close bond. Whatever generosity that Crow shares with Thomas is based on a kinship and connection that has been developed for years.
I have no particular reason to doubt that Justice Thomas and Harlan Crow are very close friends. With that said, it seems wrong to say that no one doubts that. A lot of people do. And to my mind it raises an interesting question: Do Supreme Court Justices have real friends? Or maybe, more specifically, if you're a Justice, how do you know who is a real friend, and how do you know who has decided to "befriend" you for their own personal or political reasons?
Sure, if you have an old friend from childhood, or a law school roommate you've kept in consistent touch with over the years, that's very likely a real friend. If you were friends with someone before you became someone important, you can probably trust that friendship.
It seems to me, though, that new Justices should be and presumably usually are rather wary of those seeking their friendship. A lot of people interested in politics would love to be friends with Justices. For some, it may just be fascination with power. Justices have a lot of that, and they have life tenure, too.
And some of that interest may have an agenda in mind. My sense is that, when a Justice arrives in D.C.—or if they're in D.C. already, when they reach the Court— there's often a line of people quite eager to make friends with them who, lo and behold, might just have a particular set of views that they want to eventually impress upon their new friend. I would imagine that, if you're on the Court, some skepticism of your new "friends" might be in order.
On a largely but not entirely unrelated front, I wonder what it's like to be a Justice visiting a law school. From what I can tell, it's fairly common, when a school is so lucky as to have a Justice visit, for the Justice to be feted like royalty. And what to think when (as I've seen at several places) the Dean arranges for the Justice to meet during the visit with a few current 3Ls who just happen to be at the top of the class and are preparing their clerkship applications to the Court? I assume the Justices understand what is happening, as it's not all that subtle. And maybe, when that's the way people in your field interact with you for so long, it becomes kinda normal. Still, it must be odd.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well said.
I think the way I would look at it is this- no one can know a counterfactual for certain, but if Thomas wasn't on the Supreme Court, would Harlan Crow have become his friend, and would his friend have been so generous?
(OTOH, I have to admit a certain melancholy when I read the bit about wondering if Justices had any "real" friends in terms of the people they meet after becoming Justices.)
Good observation about the melancholy aspect; the job of SCOTUS Justice is profoundly isolating. Once a Justice, do you ever see anyone you meet in the same way? Probably not. You are always on guard.
“(OTOH, I have to admit a certain melancholy when I read the bit about wondering if Justices had any “real” friends in terms of the people they meet after becoming Justices.)”
How members of Congress? You know like Gold Bar Bob.
Remember when politicians used to resign when they fucked up?
hobie, you don't understand, 'Sticky Fingers' Menendez is totally 'Jersey'. That is all I can say. He is corrupt as the day is long.
If Sticky Fingers runs (and actually manages to stay out of jail), I will support him just for the sheer entertainment value of watching a debate and campaign, with him in it. He 'owns' Hudson County. NJ is the bluest of blue states, and Sticky Fingers Menendez is the poster child of blue state corruption. Therefore, I would like Sticky Fingers to represent NJ; he is the perfect representative for our state.
Go get 'em, Sticky Fingers! Send me a yard sign! 🙂
Humor aside, yes I do remember that time. Honor and decency were an actual thing then; and valued. Now, not so much.
You're really committed to voting for crooks, I guess.
Mr. Bumble : "You know like Gold Bar Bob"
1. Congrats if you came up with that nickname.
2. That said, haven't you heard? It was all the wife's fault...
Gold Bar Bob is not my creation and has been floating around for a while.
So he has no friends but his wife does?
Did the wife spit on any neighbors?
Setting aside the attacks on specific people, justices have it worse than members of Congress. Members of Congress can at least express their views to others without the very act of doing so being controversial. They can talk about politics and current events. They can engage in the sorts of talk that we do here in the VC comment sections (though hopefully with more maturity and decorum!) Justices cannot. The only things they can ethically talk about are sports and weather and their pets and the like. They can make abstract comments about the law, but they can't discuss current cases socially, because anything may end up before them. Sure, there are controversial subjects that most of us would eschew discussing at work, that we'd only say among friends or family — but justices can't even do that, lest it come back on them. Their spouses are really the only ones with whom they can be open.
Harlan Crow was once asked whether he’d be friends with Thomas if he wasn’t on the Supreme Court. Crow responded, “It’s an interesting, good question. I don’t know how to answer that. Maybe not. Maybe yes. I don’t know.”
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3954678-gop-mega-donor-says-clarence-thomas-is-victim-of-political-hit-job/
The weathy often find it easy to be brutally fortright and that has the ring of truth. A more interesting question is whether Thomas would be friends with Crow absent all those Benjamins. I have real doubts. Regardless of my political perspective on the Justice, he's obviously a smart man. I look at Crow – with his bizarro sculpture garden, nazi memorabilia, and Hitler paintings hanging on the wall (one an obvious fake) – and don’t have the same impression in turn. How would you describe someone who’d put a mediocre picture on his wall just because the artist also committed genocide? I don’t know, but I’d start with “shallow” and go from there.
So what do Thomas and Crow have to talk about? One account I read answered that with “dogs”….
Is that paintings of Hitler or by Hitler? I've seen some paintings by Winston Churchill that are quite nice. I'd be pleased to have done them myself. Obviously, if they go on the market the prices will be disconnected from their artistic merits and I assume the same is true of Hitler's.
Wouldn't a joint exhibition be a hoot?
Crow owns two or three paintings by Hitler. Personally, I can't imagine a universe where a thoughtful reasoning person would want to hang a "Hitler" on his walls, but that's just me.
(and - yes - a Hitler-Churchill exhibition would be a spectacle)
This is an amusing sidebar, but I must scold you for an obvious oversight. Any such exhibit would have to include former President bush’s bathtub self-portrait painting
According to this article, the fake is signed "A. Hitler."
Gosh.... An honest answer to something random.
Would Obama still have been President if he hadn't married Michelle...Maybe yes...maybe no
Ah yes— the classic conservative metaphysical skepticism that curiously only seems to be deployed occasionally.
Besides, didn’t they previously assert that the basis for their friendship was their mutual love of dogs? Why would that be affected by Clarence being— or not being— on the court?
This seems to be a general problem among powerful, rich, and famous people: how can you tell if someone is genuine, or only interested in your power/wealth/fame? Besides keeping friends from before one became powerful/rich/famous, one option which is apparently common (at least from my outside perspective) is to only befriend people who have a similar level of power, wealth, or fame. But from the outside, how do you tell a strategy to distinguish genuine-from-transactional friendship apart from an intentional exchange of money for power or fame?
And how do you separate relationships that start as transactional and migrate to genuine friendship?
I don't think people of similar wealth/power/fame can easily distinguish "similar" nor does it imply that two different people with different values for each of those categories couldn't see someone else as a valuable acquaintance to have. Steve Ballmer might seek out a friendship with Elon Musk because he's interested in access to a global satellite network or priority for a ride to the moon.
If Thomas is (hypothetically) impeached for his lax approach to judicial ethics and loses his power and fame (by trading it for unemployment and infamy), would Harlan Crowe still fly him around on a plane and buy him motorhomes? The loss of power/wealth/fame would be more likely to demonstrate whether there was a real friendship there to begin with.
Actually the motorhome wasn’t crow. That gentleman, whose name escapes me at the moment, actually has a more plausible claim to genuine friendship with Thomas— IIRC they were colleagues at EEOC before Clarence got on the bench. Grb has the money quote above— Harlan all but admits it’s transactional.
Crow only does the vacations, the private jet rides, the club in California, the moms house and the nephews tuition (that we know about). And he conducts Jim Ho’s swearing ceremony in his little museum. No word on if they used the mein kampf for that or not…
It's not limited to Supreme Court justices.
We can reflect on the apparently quite genuine friendship between Justices Scalia and RBG - a case where their status as Justices was probably both the reason for the friendship, and entirely non-transactional.
...and (I think) their love of opera.
Yep. They were an odd couple our country could really use more of.
But I was thinking about the way they met up - as equals, so lingering power disparity questions were off the table - not the shared interests they discovered after they were both on the bench.
This article and Blackman's article miss the point! It DOES NOT MATTER whether or not Crow is a genuine good friend of Long Dong Silver. It DOES NOT MATTER whether the gifts were genuine gifts or bribes. Long Dong Silver is supposed to avoid anything which MIGHT APPEAR to be a POTENTIAL bribe or HINT of corruption. He is NOT just supposed to avoid actual corruption.
His response to Crow's offers of gifts should have been: "Thank you, dear friend, but I cannot accept anything from you, because of how it MIGHT APPEAR."
He should have seen the opportunity to refuse the offers and say this as an affirmative benefit of his office, not as a burden to be dodged or minimized.
You mean an appearance of impropriety such as his daughter being a fundraiser for a political party? Especially when the case involves the leader of the opposition party?
no the appearances of impropriety where he has a choice of whether to accept a series of very expensive gifts from people with an ideological and in sometimes financial interest in him staying on the Court.
Either the standard is appearance of impropriety or not and the judge's daughter was fundraising off of the case.
No, she wasn't.
Snope on whether or not she worked for the Biden-Harris campaign
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/daughter-of-judge-trump-case-biden-harris-work/
What does that have to do with the claim that she "was fundraising off of the case"?
Well, on this particular issue (not that anyone cares about facts, other than "Look, here's something else!")-
There is a difference between taking things yourself, and things that involve adult children.
Second, and most importantly, the adult daughter is not a fundraiser for the Democrats, but she is with a political marketing agency that does work with non-profits and politicians- that are progressive.
Because this issue was raised by Trump's attorneys in 2023, the Judge sought an ethics opinion from the NYS Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, which found no reason for recusal. You can look up the opinion.
And by SCOTUS standards Thomas gets to decide if he should recuse or not.
Good job, you spotted the problem.
Drewski in one.
The standard for recusal shouldn't be entirely up to the judge. That's the problem. I credit Merchan for verifying, through an outside and independent ethics source, the issues.
This is why we continue to have issues with the Supreme Court. Self-policing only works to the extent that we trust the integrity of the individuals, and even if they have integrity, it is always best to have a "trust, but verify," process.
There are a number of ways that this could be done. For example, if a request for recusal of a Justice is made, it could be referred out to an independent body, and the recommendation can be made (and it would be public). If the Justice chooses not to follow that recommendation, then the Supreme Court could amend the internal procedures to allow for a majority vote to enforce it. Or something. But at a minimum, the process is broken.
Loki — The independent body ideal for that purpose already exists, and can be conveniently accessed. It's called a grand jury. If Garland's recent tough talk was more than window-dressing, Thomas and Alito, at least, should be under grand jury investigation right now. Let's hope they are.
Look, I don't want to get into that issue.
What I want is real reform for the ethical issues at the Supreme Court.
I am not trying to say that there have never been issues- from Rehnquist and his "medication" to Fortas "taking one for the team after being threatened by Nixon" you could always find something in history.
That said, I do think that there has been a noticeable decline in the perceived (and I would argue actual) integrity in the Court in the last 15 years, and I would like to see serious reform to change that for the better.
Loki — Do you see something wrong with 28 U.S. Code § 455? Looks to me like an existing law which says:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
That looks to me like it takes recusal out of the challenged justice's discretion. Seems like if that isn't good enough for an indictment, then no other law passed by Congress could have any better effect. The nation might as well resign itself to government by a panel of judicial oligarchs.
Come to think of it, is there a case to be made that the purported Court-created ethical standard breaches 28 U.S. Code § 455?
There is the issue of Congressional ethical standards on a separate branch, which I don't particularly want to get into.
"Indictment"? Do you think this is a criminal law?
i.e., you concede IMT's point and wonder how far the principle extends.
This is simply a justification for single party rule.
Intelligent Mr Toad : "....but I cannot accept anything from you, because of how it MIGHT APPEAR.”
Yeah. But isn't it much simpler just to never report the gifts?
Problem solved!
An appearance of impropriety like not recusing himself if Crow ever has any business before the court?
Since crow never has had any business before the court, then things are good until he does, and Thomas fails to recuse.
You appear to be as uninformed, ignorant, and wrong as you are bigoted, disaffected, and obsolete.
Thomas is just savvier than the other Justices to cash in that much more, eh!
You can think Thomas gets to stay on the Court without defending his behavior to the hilt.
People did that with Jackson yesterday, even!
I've never had any interaction with famous and powerful attorneys, SCOTUS justices or otherwise. But I did spend a couple of decades working in the music business around some very famous people. Invariably, they were surrounded by a retinue of sycophants who sometimes turned them into unpleasant entitled petulant emotionally needy children. Not always, but the smart way to bet.
Is the Crow-Thomas relationship purely transactional? I don't know, but I've seen no evidence to the contrary.
And as Mr Toad clearly explains, the issue is the appearance of bias or bribe should be enough for KJB or Thomas to decline the gifts. Unfortunately, like decadent rock stars the justices have reached a level of success where there is no accountability.
Always assume it's your charisma not your money or power until proven otherwise.
Otherwise it's a doorway to paranoia.
This post inclines me to believe there is one Volokh Conspirator who is not afflicted by that which makes some people antisocial, awkward, disaffected, literal, socially obsessive, unable to handle change, unable to read social norms, unable to empathize, etc.
Congratulations . . . you're at the top of the Delta pledge class!
What the fuck does it matter that they were friends for a long time?
If they were friends for just a day, it'd be inappropriate?
Inappropriate how? There is nothing in the Supreme Court's ethics guidelines that point to any Identifiable problem.
Um, yes. It does.
Supreme Court Code of Conduct: A Justice should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Regulations on Gifts now in effect.
Judicial Conference Regulations on GiftsSection 620.45: no gift may be accepted by a judicial officer or employee if a reasonable person would believe it was offered in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act or in violation of any statute or regulation, nor may a judicial officer or employee accept gifts from the same or different sources on a basis so frequent that a reasonable person would believe that the public office is being used for private gain.
Anyone (especially a politically active person) giving millions of dollars of gifts over the course of a couple decades or so to a Supreme Court Justice would lead one to believe at least one, and probably both, of the following: the gifts were "offered in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act" and/or "the public office is being used for private gain."
To the latter, there is significant evidence that Thomas thought he was dramatically underpaid, that he maybe would retire because he thought he was underpaid, and around about that time, begins regularly getting expensive gifts and luxury travel. At first, he disclosed these gifts, but stopped reporting the gifts when his receipt of them was reported and criticized. He kept accepting the gifts though. This suggests that he felt he was justified in receiving compensation other than from the government that was commensurate with his worth. (i.e., it can reasonably be believed that he was staying on the Court in part because of or or in order to receive these millions of dollars worth of gifts).
Harlan Crowe's motives may also reasonably be questioned, particularly whether he would be giving these gifts to Thomas if Thomas was not a Supreme Court Justice with views he liked, who had said he was underpaid, who had suggested he might retire, and who Crowe had incentive to want to keep on the Court given his own political views and activism.
"There is nothing in the Supreme Court’s ethics guidelines that point to any Identifiable problem."
Quite the unqualified declaration from a disaffected, uninformed, ignorant, partisan misfit.
"Supreme Court's Public Information Officer Patricia McCabe about Beyoncé—it struck me as likely just McCabe's own well-meaning-but-odd comment"
Went to the linked tweet:
“Justice Jackson is crazy in love with Beyonce’s music. Who isn’t?”
What is odd about this? She got concert tickets (which musicians give out regularly, right?). It seems a rather ordinary thing to say.
>A lot of people interested in politics would love to be friends with Justices. For some, it may just be fascination with power.
This strikes me as being at the heart of most of the present controversies. Justices have become celebrities. People are fascinated with celebrity, and the rich and famous are not necessarily different. Their fascination yields rewards. (Although to be fair, the fascination of normal people does that too: does anyone think the justices’ books would sell as well if they were country lawyers? that they would be invited to speak for as many groups? that their likenesses would adorn t-shirts or magazines?)
That doesn’t mean there is any corruption, because no one is plausibly influencing outcomes. But it still seems gross and unseemly, because it feels like public servants are capitalizing on their office. And perhaps it feels particularly gross and unseemly when it is your political opponents doing it, because how could they possibly be up to any good?
But seeming isn’t being. We should think clearly about what our standards really are (and should be) without regard to whose side a justice is on. And if we really have a solid idea what those standards should be, we should enact them into law, so that there is no question.
nor may a judicial officer or employee accept gifts from the same or different sources on a basis so frequent that a reasonable person would believe that the public office is being used for private gain
This isn't a both sides thing. One Justice and one Justice only has gotten regularly gotten gifts for over 20 years from one benefactor and those gifts were worth millions of dollars. That is different in both frequency and dollar amount from anything any other Justice, perhaps in history, has accepted.
Book deals are a common thing by everybody and that is the only other apparent source of very large, extra-judicial income. I do think that is less than ideal, though well-established practice. It also seems incongruous to say you can't earn more than $30,000 (I forget the actual number) teaching con law classes, but you can make hundreds of thousands or millions writing books. The whole limit on earning money teaching classes is an acknowledgment that we generally don't want them to earn outside income as that is ripe for abuse.
But I am all in favor of raising the salaries of Supreme Court Justices, specifying dollar amounts for gifts that Supreme Court Justices may receive, specifying dollar amounts that they can earn on books written/published while they are in office, and otherwise putting actual teeth and some definite standards for common/known situations (while also keeping the impropriety/appearance of impropriety standards) in the Code of Conduct and an independent board/council to decide compliance (which the Justices can consult beforehand if they are unsure about accepting a particularly offer of largess).
I love this crap, 'friends for nearly 30years'
AS if Thomas being on the supreme court for over 30 years is happenstance
Thomas is a crook
Just a remark in passing. A substantial fraction of humanity—at least at this time in the United States—studies and practices social interactions as survival skills—to the exclusion of almost every other consideration, especially abstract principles. For folks of that sort, some abstract legal concepts—patents, copyrights, conflicts of interest, and defamation are standout examples—seem especially difficult to grasp.
Likewise with abstract natural principles. For the especially socially alert, the notion that the natural world might impose unalterable constraints is simply inconceivable. They rebel against it.
Of course, modern politics gets more than its share of principles-be-damned, social-reality-firsters. Society in general runs that way today. Politics rewards whatever behaviors are most broadly shared, and thus treated as exemplary.
I do not think it has always been that way. It seems evident that Washington, John Quincy Adams, Lincoln, or Truman—leaders especially mindful of obedience to constraints imposed by constitutionalism—could not hope today to reach high office. All would be judged now as over-scrupulous to the point almost of inhumanity, and hence unpopular. Note that none of them seems to show any record of struggle with the concept of conflict of interest.
The socially alert in today's world seem to reckon insistence on principled conduct as bothersome, to the point of rebuke. Justice Souter could probably write a book on that theme. Likewise Mike Pence, Rusty Bowers or Liz Cheney. Note the similar trajectories their careers have taken.
Now is the time for the socially alert—a time of thriving for emperors in new clothes. It will thus be interesting to see in the weeks ahead which among the Supreme Court justices remain willing to let their social antennae guide their conduct, and which, if any, are willing to risk hazards of social incongruity for the sake of principle.