In what many critics are calling an unusual defense, Northwestern law professor Steven Calabresi recently declared that Justice Clarence Thomas, allegedly involved in numerous undisclosed financial agreements, is still deemed an “incorruptible” figure in the Supreme Court. Calabresi’s stance directly challenges the widely circulated findings from ProPublica, who reported that Thomas received hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and other compensation – instances he failed to disclose publicly despite legal obligations to do so.
Calabresi’s defense, in another twist, used Thomas’s impoverished childhood as a justification for accepting gifts from wealthy friends. Yet detractors point out that this standpoint is rather precarious, likening it to espionage defenses seen when spies are caught selling secrets due to their low NSA wages. While there’s a clear distinction between actions that are legally condemnable and those simply ethically questionable, the murkiness surrounding Justice Thomas’s circumstances hasn’t escaped legal professionals and laymen alike.
Nonetheless, Calabresi remains steadfast in his belief, declaring in his Volokh Conspiracy essay that Justice Thomas is “the best and most incorruptible Supreme Court Justice in U.S. History”. He also doubled down on his stance in a follow-up piece, dismissing critics who question his understanding of the issue.
The debate continues to draw contrasting opinions, with some suggesting that Calabresi’s defense of Thomas might even be a satirical commentary, considering it contains hyperbole even an Onion article would find excessive. Yet such claims also raise a question about the professor’s intent: is he genuinely defending Justice Thomas, or is his defense a satirical indictment of the Supreme Court’s inner workings?