Letters to the Editor: Clarence Thomas became a justice and made billionaire friends. What luck
To the editor: It boggles the mind that we need to discuss legislating ethical standards for the judiciary. I always thought that a judge was already expected to be a paragon of ethical behavior. (“Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ corruption is intolerable. Here’s what we can do about it,” Opinion, Aug. 10)
It should be obvious to all that if we suddenly have new “friends” offering us things of value after achieving a position of authority — as with Clarence Thomas after he became a Supreme Court justice in 1991 — those people expect something in return. Ethical values should be instilled in each of us from childhood and not be subject to compromise.
At Thomas’ confirmation hearings, Anita Hill tried to warn us about his character. Those in power chose to ignore her, and now we are all paying the price.
Dale S. Weikel, Bullhead City, Ariz.
..
To the editor: When President George H.W. Bush appointed Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991, liberals and radicals panicked. A Black conservative on the U.S. Supreme Court? Perish the thought!
Since then, liberals like [Noah] Bookbinder and [Dennis] Aftergut have tried to impugn his integrity. This is the latest episode.
If they can prove Justice Thomas decided a case based on other than his conscience, they should prove it. Otherwise, their assertion that Thomas is corrupt is slanderous.
Robert S. Rodgers, Culver City
..
To the editor: History will, I am certain, not be kind to Thomas.
I was against his confirmation from the beginning. It was easy to see through his facade. Anita Hill warned the American public and elected officials that Thomas was unfit as a justice.
Unfortunately, enough Senate Democrats caved in to pressure to confirm a Black justice, afraid to judge him for who he was. We citizens have been paying the price ever since.
Thomas has been on the wrong side of history since he was sworn in. He will continue to do the bidding of right-wing Republicans until he is out of office.
Sydney Williams, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: In the early 1990s, I worked for a company that sponsored the Los Angeles Open golf tournament.
My job included inviting some of our largest customers to participate in the pro-am portion of the event. So, I invited an important client who headed a major Los Angeles city agency, and as an avid golfer he readily accepted.
A few days later he called and inquired about the monetary value of the outing. After I told him our company paid about $3,000 per player, he regrettably said he couldn’t accept any gift valued at more than $600.
It seems the Thomas standard is that he doesn’t accept any gifts valued at less than $600. It also seems that if local agencies are capable of implementing and adhering to gift standards, the highest court in the land should be able to figure something out.
Larry Nelson, Dana Point
