‘Phony Ethics Assault’: WSJ Editorial Board Slams ‘Non-Bombshell’ Clarence Thomas Report As Political Smear By ProPublica
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
After ProPublica published their article attempting to paint a picture of wrongdoing on the part of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, many members of the media and multiple elected Democrats were quick to agree and call for action against the conservative jurist. But that was all a big show and part of a left-wing scheme to discredit the court, not any actual ethical concern, the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial board argued this week.
In an op-ed published Friday, under the subheadline “The left gins up another phony ethics assault to tarnish the Supreme Court,” the WSJ described ProPublica’s report as essentially smoke and mirrors, designed as polemic in order to create the illusion of ethics violations where none exist.
“The left’s assault on the Supreme Court is continuing, and the latest front is the news that Justice Clarence Thomas has a rich friend who has hosted the Justice on his private plane, his yacht, and his vacation resort. That’s it. That’s the story,” the venerable, conservative, Rupert Murdoch-owned publication’s editorial reads. “Yet this non-bombshell has triggered breathless claims that the Court must be investigated, and that Justice Thomas must resign or be impeached.”
“Those demands give away the real political game here,” the Journal wrote.
ProPublica is a nonprofit outfit that, according to its website, “is an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force.” The organization, created by subprime mortgage billionaire Herbert Sandler, has been showered with press awards over its 16-year history, including a 2010 Pulitzer while under the leadership of founding editor Paul Steiger, who was previously managing editor of the Wall Street Journal.
The Journal’s Friday op-ed described ProPublica as “a left-leaning website” engaging in “ugly politics” in order to smear Thomas and the court to the gain of the political left.
And it accused the site of using “adjectival overkill” in order to obscure the fact that there isn’t “much to report.”
ProPublica, a left-leaning website, kicked off the fun with a report Thursday that Justice Thomas has a longtime friendship with Harlan Crow, a wealthy Texas real-estate developer. The intrepid reporters roamed far and wide to discover that the Justice has sometimes traveled on Mr. Crow’s “Bombardier Global 5000 jet” and that each summer the Justice and his wife spend a vacation week at Mr. Crow’s place in the Adirondacks.
The piece is loaded with words and phrases intended to convey that this is all somehow disreputable: “superyacht”; “luxury trips”; “exclusive California all-male retreat”; “sprawling ranch”; “private chefs”; “elegant accommodation”; “opulent lodge”; “lavishing the justice with gifts.” And more.
Adjectival overkill is the method of bad polemicists who don’t have much to report. The ProPublica writers suggest that Justice Thomas may have violated ethics rules, and they quote a couple of cherry-picked ethicists to express their dismay.
But it seems clear that the Court’s rules at the time all of this happened did not require that gifts of personal hospitality be disclosed. This includes the private plane trips. ProPublica fails to make clear to readers that the U.S. Judicial Conference recently changed its rules to require more disclosure. The new rules took effect last month.
After mocking some of the claims in the article, the board says that the facts won’t “stop the political stampede” designed to “tarnish” the current Court and undermine its credibility.
They cite examples of Democrats using the Pro Publica story to do just that, including Rep. Ted Lieu and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.
An example not included was Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who this week both called for impeaching Justice Thomas and for the White House to ignore a federal court’s ruling on the abortion pill because of the judge’s politics.
The op-ed argues that this is all one big effort in which outlets like ProPublica are joined with Democrats and progressive activists to bring the Court back in line with their desires.
“This ethics talk is really about setting up an apparatus that politicians can then use against the Justices if there is any transgression, however minor or inadvertent,” the editorial concludes. “The claims of corruption are intended to smear the conservative Justices and tarnish the Court to tee up case recusals, impeachment or a Court-packing scheme if Democrats get enough Senate votes to break the filibuster.”
“It’s all ugly politics, but the left is furious it lost control of the Court,” it says, “and it wants it back by whatever means possible.”
