A recent article by ProPublica attempts to construct a negative narrative around Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, but upon closer inspection, the allegations lack coherence and substance.
ProPublica's five-person bylined piece seizes on an offhand complaint by Justice Thomas about his salary in 2000, spinning it into a baseless conspiracy.
The latest ‘hit’ on Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t even make sense https://t.co/paSEXvZkty pic.twitter.com/TISPOqrTH8
— NY Post Opinion (@NYPostOpinion) December 23, 2023
The article suggests that Thomas' gripe triggered significant activity, conveniently reducing it to a solitary memo discussing the potential salary increase for justices.
Using journalistic language, such as "newly unearthed documents," ProPublica aims to portray its content as investigative reporting rather than activism, a common tactic in articles critical of the Supreme Court.
The piece attempts to paint Justice Thomas' associations and activities as unusual and suspicious, portraying him as part of an "ultrarich" circle attending exclusive conferences and enjoying luxury amenities.
This tactic of framing innocuous behavior as unethical is a recurring theme in attempts to smear Justice Thomas.
The article subtly insinuates that Thomas can be influenced by money, raising questions about the motives behind the financial support he receives. ProPublica suggests that the reason behind such support is unclear, creating an atmosphere of innuendo.
The majority of the article revisits ProPublica's earlier stories about Justice Thomas' association with Harlan Crow, emphasizing their friendship without providing evidence of unethical behavior benefiting either party.
The hit piece fails to demonstrate any impropriety or misconduct on Justice Thomas' part.
It is crucial to note that justices are allowed to attend conferences, have friends, and express concerns about their salaries. The article, if anything, underscores Justice Thomas' willingness to express dissatisfaction about financial matters rather than engaging in unethical behavior.
The broader significance lies in the compounding smear strategy, mirroring the approach seen in previous attempts to discredit conservative Supreme Court justices. The goal is to flood the media landscape with allegations, creating an illusion of an emerging story while providing no conclusive evidence.
This compounding smear enables media outlets to casually mention "ethics controversies" surrounding Justice Thomas and allows pundits to exaggerate perceived threats to democracy from the Supreme Court. The article contributes to the broader effort to delegitimize the high court, particularly targeting conservative justices like Clarence Thomas.
Despite the lack of substantial evidence, the smear campaign against Justice Thomas persists, fueled by ideological bias and disdain for his unwavering commitment to conservative principles and adherence to the Constitution.
