← The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
The Clarence Thomas Political Smear: All the Facts You Need To Know to Understand The Left's Dishonest Attacks
01:02:00
Loading summary
Transcript27 lines
- [00:01]
Ben Ferguson
Welcome. It is the verdict of Senator Ted Cruz. Ben Ferguson with you. And we are publishing on a Tuesday for a reason. The Democrats have decided that they want to have a conversation in Washington, in Congress over what they're describing as judicial ethics. The problem is it's nothing more than an assault on the Supreme Court. And specifically, there is one justice they're really wanting to go after, and that is Justice Clarence Thomas. Senator, you're there in the middle of this talk about the Democrats and their game plan for this, quote, judicial ethics conversation.
- [00:41]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, we are witnessing an historic assault on the Court. And what the Democrats are doing is launching a frontal attack on the Supreme Court itself, on the legitimacy of the Court. They are trying to tear down the institution altogether. The reason they are doing that is that the Supreme Court is the one institution that the hard left does not control. And there is right now a majority of Justices on the Court who are committed to the Constitution, who are constitutionalists. And that drives the left crazy. It is one of the very few checks that remain on out of control left wing assaults on our basic rights, on free speech, on religious liberty, on the Second Amendment, that you have Justices on the Supreme Court willing to be faithful to the Constitution and not to leftist political ideology. But the assault is not just directed at the Court itself. The assault is very deliberately directed at one justice in particular, Clarence Thomas. You may have noticed in the last several weeks, article after article after article attacking Justice Thomas, accusing him of being unethical, accusing him of being corrupt, accusing him of being bought and paid for. All of this is designed to try to wear Justice Thomas down. And the objective of the left, I believe, is they hope to drive him away from the Court. Now, let me be clear. They will not, not succeed. But if you take a moment to enter the fevered minds of the radical left, they have a hatred for Justice Thomas that is unique. There are other conservative Justices, there have been other conservative Justices over the years. But the left has a special loathing for Justice Thomas because he is African American. It is a loathing that is qualitatively different. Their view, the view of the hard left, is that a black man cannot dare to be a conservative. That if you are black, or for that matter, if you are Hispanic, you must be a left wing ideologue. And if you're not, they have a unique level of rage. And when it comes to Justice Thomas, you look at the dripping contempt that the left has heaped upon him for decades. Justice Antonin Scalia served decades on the Court. He was by almost any measure every bit as conservative as Clarence Thomas. And yet the left didn't despise Justice Scalia the way they despised Justice Thomas. My former boss on the Supreme Court, William Hobbs Rehnquist, was an extraordinary conservative who ushered in fundamental realignments of Supreme Court jurisprudence, bringing them back to the text and the original understanding of the Constitution. Chief Justice Rehnquist impact on the Supreme Court is monumental and historic. And yet the left does not despise him even a fraction of what they despise Justice Thomas. And the important thing to understand about this assault on Justice Thomas, this is not a fair minded inquiry into judicial ethics. The reason we are releasing this pod on Tuesday morning instead of Wednesday morning, we're releasing it one day early, is later today the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing convened by Democrat Chairman Dick Durbin. It is a hearing that is designed to be a kangaroo court, that is designed to be a circus that has one central objective, attacking, smearing, maligning Justice Thomas. The left wants to vilify him. And here's something important to understand. Supreme Court Justices are not able to defend themselves from political attacks. It's important for everyone listening to this podcast to understand what is happening. This is a political attack. It is organized, it is concerted, it is funded. It has left wing advocacy groups who one day after another, after another release breathless expose of alleged improprieties. Those exposes are then amplified in a deliberate, concerted way through all of their friends in the corrupt corporate media. And then Democrats Senators and Democrat House members jump up and down and demand Justice Thomas's resignation. This is not organic, this is not happening just naturally. This is a political campaign every bit as organized as a campaign for governor, for Senator or for President. And a Supreme Court justice like Justice Thomas is not in a position to defend himself. Justices have none of the equipment to defend themselves from a political smear campaign. They don't typically have the skill set or experience to defend themselves in a political smear campaign. And when the media are active participants in the smear campaign, it is altogether one sided and imbalanced. Therefore, I think it is incumbent on those of us who are in the political arena to present the other side of the argument, to present the defense to defend Justice Thomas. Let me say I know Justice Thomas. He is, in my judgment, hands down one of the greatest Justices ever to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. He is a brilliant man. He is a deeply principled man. He is ferociously devoted to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He is a careful scholar and he is a man of courage. All of those attributes would lead most people ordinarily to respect, to admire, to revere. The man I will readily admit I revere Justice Clarence Thomas. For the modern left, those attributes are why they despise him. And even more so, take all of that fury and amplify it tenfold because he's an African American. Not just an African American. An African American who grew up in abject poverty in Pinpoint, Georgia, who came from nothing, who worked hard, who studied, who achieved, and yet who does not buy into the leftist narrative that they demand of the African American community. You accept their rules or they will go after you and demonize you. So this podcast is designed to explain, okay, what are the issues surrounding the attacks? What's really going on? And I'm going to tell you in one sentence the key thing to understand. The attacks are utterly hypocritical. They are applying a double standard to Justice Thomas that is applied to no other justice. If we want to have a abstract reason discussion about judicial ethics, about what the rules should be and what the rules are, that should apply to every judge or every justice that's reasonable, that's perfectly appropriate for the Senate Judiciary Committee to do. That will not be what the Democrats do today. Instead, this will be a political attack ad from the moment it gavels in till the end of the hearing, all designed to malign and attack Justice Thomas and what he is accused of. Numerous other justices, including liberal icons that the left reveres, people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, people like Stephen Breyer, people like Sonia Sotomayor, have done the very same thing. And what the Democrats and the media are doing is they're trying to apply a double standard, to apply rules that were not rules only to Justice Thomas, not because his conduct is materially different from the other judges or justices, but rather because they hate and despise him. And so I hope that this podcast gives you some more information to understand just how unfair, just how biased this political smear attack is.
- [09:19]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, and it's not just a smear attack. It's also them trying to undermine the stability and how important the Supreme Court is. And I do want to ask you one question about that. Before I do, I want to tell you about our friends over at Patriot Mobile. If you are sick and tired of giving your money to companies that just don't stand with your values, for years, in fact, big mobile companies, probably the one you're with right now, has been dumping millions into leftist causes, and you pretty much had to just say, okay, I'm going to deal with it because you didn't have another option. Well, guess what? There is another option. Patriot mobile, America's only christian conservative wireless provider. Now they offer dependable nationwide coverage on all three major networks so you get the best possible service in your area without the woke propaganda pushed by leftists working hard to destroy this country. When you switch to patriot mobile each month, a portion of your bill will actually go to support free speech and religious freedom, the sanctity of life, second amendment issues and our military as well as veterans and first responders are heroes. They're 100 U. S based customer service team makes switching easy. You can keep your same cell phone number if you want to. You can keep your same cell phone or upgrade to a newer model. Plus you're going to get free activation today with the offer code verdict. That's right, use the offer code verdict. You'll get free activation. The best deals of the day. Patriotmobile.com verdict is where you need to go. Patriot mobile.com verdict or call them 878-PATRIOT that's 878-PATRIOT 878-PATRIOT Senator, I want to get back to one other thing before we bring in a special guest and that is it is clear that the democratic party has been trying to undermine the supreme court. Once they saw that it was going to be moving to a conservative court. This happened during Trump administration. Yes, it was very clear. They decided then, all right, let's undermine the court any way we can. We saw them give out home addresses of supreme court justices, harass supreme court justices. Talk about packing a court, expanding the court and now doing what they're doing today in Washington is another step in just undermining the rule of law.
- [11:42]
Senator Ted Cruz
That is exactly right. We also saw the absolute circus of the confirmation hearing for justice Brett Kavanaugh where the democrats were perfectly willing to smear justice Kavanaugh. It followed a pattern they had done previously with Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearing. Again where they went into the gutter with nasty personal smears. And that followed a pattern that was originated in 1987 with the nomination of Robert Bork. And their treatment of Robert Bork was so detestable that it actually formed coined a new verb. To Bork a judge or to bork a nominee is to go into the gutter with nasty personal scurrilous attacks. The democrats with justice Kavanaugh basically bellowed and accused him of being a rapist. And you recall how frustrated justice Kavanaugh became because proving a negative, proving, proving you have not committed whatever ridiculous slurs are lobbed upon you by politicians who are not mired to the facts, who are not looking to evidence, is an incredibly difficult challenge. But all of that got worse after the Supreme Court issues the Dobbs opinion. And in fact, after the Dobbs opinion was leaked, when the Dobbs opinion was leaked, which I believe and we've talked about at length, was done by a left wing law clerk in order to threaten and intimidate the Justices, the result was exactly what the Democrats predicted. It was angry mobs of protesters descending upon their homes, threatening their families. And it was also not condemned by President Biden, not condemned by the White House. When they were asked to condemn it, they refused to do so. It was not prosecuted by Merrick Garland, even though it's explicit federal crime. To protest at the home of a judge in order to influence the decision in a case. And the reason that Merrick Garland and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and Senate Democrats that none of them stood up in defense of the Court is sadly, they are willing to countenance intimidation, bullying, and ultimately threats of violence. As you know, one deranged lunatic traveled all the way from California to Bethesda, Maryland with a knife, a gun, rope and equipment in an attempt to murder Justice Kavanaugh. And inspired by the angry rhetoric of the left, that's how extreme they've been willing to go. And so their attack on Justice Thomas is meant in their fever dreams to drive Justice Thomas off the Court. But even if they fail with their major objective, their second objective is to tear down the legitimacy of the Court so that the American people do not respect its decisions. Now, for anyone that cares about our country, about our Constitution, that's not good for the country. And I think part of this concerted attack on the legitimacy of the Court is also to try to build political support for their radical plan to pack the Supreme Court to add instantaneously four new left wing Justices who will vote the way Democrats want. Mind you, they don't care about the law. Ironically, because they don't care about the law, they also don't care about democracy. Many of the policies the left pushes are wildly unpopular. The left embraces unlimited abortion on demand up until the moment of birth with no limitations. Roughly 9% of Americans agree with that, 91% don't. So when the people vote, they don't vote for radical left wing positions. The American people believe in the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They want to be able to protect their families. When the people vote on that, they typically vote to protect those rights. Today's modern Democrats don't want the people to be able to vote on contested political issues. Instead, they want unelected judges to decree the extreme left wing position and to disenfranchise the voters. And so this attempt to delegitimize the court is ultimately an attempt to attack democracy itself. And there's an irony because that's one of the favored talking points of today's Democrats is they're defending democracy. And unfortunately, in the political battle we're in, frequently we see Democrats purporting to defend that which they are in fact attacking and purporting to oppose that in fact in which they are in fact promoting. And in this instance, the attack on the court is front and center. An attack on democracy and an attack on the Constitution.
- [16:25]
Ben Ferguson
No doubt about it. Before we bring in a guest, as someone who knows Clarence Thomas very well and I want you to intro him appropriately, I want to tell you about our friends Augusta Precious Metals. Right now is a great time to protect your hard earned dollars in a 401k, an IRA that is backed with gold. If you've never looked at gold and silver as a part of a diversified portfolio, now may be the time for you to actually take that look. There is no time to make up losses in the market, especially if you're in retirement or close to retirement. And that is where Augusta Precious Metals comes in. In fact, right now, if you've saved a hundred thousand dollars or more and you switch part of that into a gold ira, you're also going to get free gold. That's right, a free gold coin just by switching to Augusta Precious Metals. They also do things a little bit differently. Not only do you get a free investors guy on gold when you call them, but you also can do a one on one conference with them online so that they can walk you through why gold and silver may be the right thing to for you to use to protect and hedge against what's going on right now in this country. We saw another bank that had to be sold in the last 24 hours. If that has got you nervous, take control and call a gust of precious metals. 8774 Gold IRA. That's 877-the-number 4 Gold IRA. Or visit them online. Augusta precious metals.com that's Augusta precious metals.com say that I sent you and they'll also pay your fees for up to 10 years. It's Augusta precious metals.com Senator, this was obviously a show that we had to do early because of what the Democrats are doing. It also gave us an opportunity to bring on a good friend of yours and a very good friend of Clarence Thomas. And I want you to introduce Mark.
- [18:19]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, sure. Our guest today is Mark Paoletta. Now, Mark is a very experienced lawyer in Washington. He is someone who has been close friends with justice Thomas for 30 years. Mark worked with Justice Thomas when he was a young lawyer in the White House Counsel's office under George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush 41, when Bush 41 nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. And so Mark worked on Justice Thomas confirmation in 1991. Recently he has co edited a book on Justice Thomas entitled Created Equal Clarence Thomas in His Own Words. Mark is a partner at the law firm in D.C. of Scher Jaffe, which is actually Gene Scherer and Eric Jaffe are both friends of mine as well. Actually, Eric Jaffe clerked at the Supreme Court the same year I did. Eric clerked for Justice Thomas while I was clerking for the Chief Justice. Mark is also a senior fellow at the center for Renewing America. He served in both the George Herbert Walker Bush administrations and the Trump administration. And he worked on the confirmations of Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh. Mark also represented Ginni Thomas in connection with the House January 6th committee, another kangaroo court. And let me actually read for you what Justice Thomas said in his memoirs about Mark Paoletta and his work on the Thomas confirmation fight. So this is a quote from Justice Thomas in his memoirs. Virginia and I looked at each other in astonishment, then thanked God for the good people of this country. We first went to St. Albans Episcopal Church, where the Reverend Jack Danforth presided over a service of thanksgiving, delivering a moving, heartfelt homily on justice to a room full of pews packed with the familiar faces of family and friends. Then we went to the White House, where I threw protocol to the wind and went directly to Mark Paletta's office to thank him for his friendship and for everything he'd done to defend me. We sat among tall stacks of paper, eating hamburgers and talking over the strange events of the summer and fall. I knew how inadequate my words of gratitude sounded. It would have taken a poet to tell him how I felt. But I also knew that out of this nightmare had come a friend to whom I would remain close for the rest of my life. It's with great pleasure that I welcome Mark Paoletta to verdict. Mark, great to be with you, Senator.
- [20:57]
Mark Paoletta
Thanks for having me on.
- [21:00]
Senator Ted Cruz
So, Mark, you have witnessed firsthand this recent assault on Justice Thomas and you have been intimately involved in fighting back against each of the charges for listeners of the podcast. Assume that listeners of the podcast are aware of the assault but are not necessarily following the details closely. How would you summarize the principal charges that have been leveled against Justice Thomas in the last six weeks or so?
- [21:35]
Mark Paoletta
So the charges are all utterly baseless, in a word, meant to attack Justice Thomas and smear him. I thought you did a wonderful job setting up what is going on here, Senator, which is to, you know, attack the court and undermine it. With respect to Justice Thomas, the charge is that he has a friend who happens to be wealthy and he goes on vacations with him, like all Americans do. Go on vacations with your friend. And this friend happens to be, as I said, be wealthy. And he's not required under the rules that the Judicial Conference laid out in implementing the ethics to disclose these trips. Harlan Crow is his friend, and Harlan's a friend of mine, has no business before the court. There are longtime friends. They share interests and values together and they go on trips. They've gone. He's got a home up in the Adirondacks that Justice Thomas has been to. And the left has turned this into some sort of crime to have a friend and not have to disclose every time you have a hamburger with a friend or go on a trip or go on a flight somewhere. And so many justices have done this over the years. It's perfectly permissible. And in fact, the Judicial Conference, at the prodding and I'd say bullying of Senator Whitehouse, recently changed this rule to say that flights that you take and certain I'll call them homes that you stay at, have to be disclosed. But it's very clear from the way they changed the language and the way it was covered in the offense of justices, the New York Times, even left wing judicial ethics expert Stephen Gillers, all admitted that Justice Thomas wasn't required to disclose these trips and these vacations before this rule changed. The rule was changed on March of 2023, just a couple weeks ago. That is this entire, this long ProPublica story. And I'm telling you, Senator, the number of reporters and the time they spent hunting down Justice Thomas's trip and where he was, the amount of time they put on that when they could be looking at Hunter Biden and Joe Biden and all the things of this administration. But what they want to focus on is making Justice Thomas life a living Hel. You said this idea of trying to actually drive them off the court at first, right? As they do with many Justices. They want to see if they could bend you to their will and make you sort of change your jurisprudence, maybe trim it here and there. They know that have been a failure, an utter failure for 30 years where justice Thomas, who used to write solo defense concurrences and you were up there at the time, you know, is now commanding majorities on all these opinions and errors that you have laid out from Dobbs to the Second Amendment to reigning in the administrative state to religious liberty. These are all issues that Justice Thomas has been a leader on and has laid down his first prudent. But that is the first sort of the first attack on him. The most latest attack was the one on the trips and the fact that he didn't disclose them.
- [25:01]
Senator Ted Cruz
So and let's take a moment to focus on this because, Mark, you're right. This has been the most prominent attack. And the attack is that he traveled with a very good friend of his, Harlan Crow. Harlan is a friend of mine as well. I know Harlan well. He lives in Dallas. He's a very successful businessman. He's a very generous philanthropist. He is a Republican, although he's not not a terribly conservative Republican. He frankly is a self described very moderate. In fact, he's described himself as a pro choice Republican. He is not Harlan Crow is not a fan of Donald Trump, but he has been a supporter. He was a big, big supporter of Mitt Romney's. He's been a supporter of mine. He's been a supporter of other Republicans. And he and Justice Thomas have been friends for decades, close friends. And the attack is that Justice Thomas has vacationed with Harlan Crow and has been to his his home on vacation and that has flown on his plane and has been on his yacht as well. And that, that's the attack. And look, I can imagine a world in which rules were put in place that says said no justice can stay at anyone else's home. I could imagine a world in which a rule was put in place that say no justice can fly on a private plane. I could imagine a world in which a rule was put in place that say no justice can can be on anyone's yacht. That might make sense. It might not. We could debate that in the abstract. But let's start with this proposition. The rules don't say that now, do they, Mark?
- [26:44]
Mark Paoletta
They are. They're being changed. If you can be on them, you need to disclose it. But until March 14th of 2023, it was if you were a friend and the personal hospitality exemption, you didn't have to disclose those sorts of trips, from the flight to the, to being on a boat to being at somebody's vacation home and food and entertainment, all those things were exempt under the personal hospitality exemption. The Judicial Conference changed that on March 14th of 2023. New York Times covered it. And even Senator Whitehouse last year had a hearing on this with the old rule and came up with a scenario that described the justice going on a yacht, a justice going to somebody's place in Aspen or something like that, and said to the witness, now he wouldn't have to disclose those things right under this rule. And his witness, this left wing, you know, activist Kendrick Payne, says, yeah, the rule has been interpreted by the court to not have to disclose that. So up until this point, Senate, you're right, you know, if they want to write a rule that says xyz, fine. But what's being, what is being sort of double standard, as you said, applied in double standard with Justice Thomas is the fact that he should have disclosed these things when he had no reason to.
- [28:10]
Senator Ted Cruz
So, and let me underscore a couple of points because it's important to understand the specifics. Number one, the judicial ethics rules have never and even to this day, do not prohibit a justice from staying at someone else's home, from flying on a plane, a private plane, from getting on a yacht. The rules do not prohibit that. And up Until March of 2023, in other words, up until just over a month ago, the rules did not require disclosure of staying at a personal friend's home or flying on the friend's plane or being on the yacht. Am I stating that accurately? Both of those propositions?
- [28:54]
Mark Paoletta
Yes.
- [28:55]
Senator Ted Cruz
Okay. Now you might say, well, okay, but clearly from the press coverage, what Justice Thomas has done is really, really different. And no other justice does that. And if that were true, then I guess you could have an argument about why Justice Thomas was doing something out of the norm. It just happens not just to be false, but wildly, blatantly, undeniably false. So according to the public data that are available at all the justices Justice Thomas has reported to date, 109 reported trips, that is, since he was appointed and confirmed to the court in 1991. 109. Of those 109, five were international trips. Now you might say 109. Okay, that's, that's egregious. That's just too much. All right, let's look to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Thomas was confirmed to the court in 1991. Justice Ginsburg was the next justice to arrive. She was confirmed in 1993. How many reported trips did Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have? 157 of them. How many were international? That would be 28. So Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed after Clarence Thomas, had nearly 50% more trips than Justice Thomas has had and had nearly six times as many international trips. Okay, well, maybe Justice Ginsburg is an outlier. What about Justice Breyer? Okay, Justice Breyer. So Steve Breyer was confirmed in 1994. So he was the next justice confirmed to the court after Ruth Bader Ginsburg during his time on the court, remember, Clarence Thomas had 109 trips. How many did Steve Breyer have? That would be 233. So more than two times as many trips as Justice Thomas. Three of them were international. All right, that's, that's Justice Breyer. How about Justice Kagan? Now, Elena Kagan was confirmed in August of 2010. So she's been on the court just over 12 years. 12 and a half years in that 12 and a half years. So about a third of the time Justice Thomas has been on the court. Elena Kagan, who's a Democrat appointee appointed by Obama, reported 68 trips. 68. So she's got 2/3 of the trips Justice Thomas has in only one third of the time. And six of those were international. Well, but surely those are outliers. All right, let's try one more. Sonia Sotomayor. Sonia Sotomayor, appointed by Obama. Obama's first appointee confirmed in August of 2009. Sonia Sotomayor, again, she's been on the court just about a third of the time Justice Thomas has. How many does she have? 151 reported trips. That is 50% more than justice Thomas in a third of the time. And 10 international trips. Now, at the Judiciary Committee hearing, if they want to go through and drag Ruth Bader Ginsburg through the mud and drag Steve Breyer through the mud and drag Elena Kagan through the mud and drag Sonia Sotomayor through the mud, the Democrats are welcome to do that. I'm going to predict they're not going to because they're being utterly hypocritical and they're attacking Clarence Thomas for something that other justices, including icons of the left, have done and most of them have done far more frequently than Clarence Thomas. Is what I said accurate there, Mark?
- [32:46]
Mark Paoletta
Absolutely accurate, Senator. And I think I'll kind of go back to what you were saying about how the left hates Justice Thomas and exposes their racism when you Read about Clarence Thomas and these trips and his friendship with Harlan Crow. It's always in this sense that Harlan Crowe has bought Justice Thomas. He has him. He's under his spell. And you never read that about any other justice with respect to going on trips and going flying somewhere, being on somebody's boat. It's this racism that's directed at Justice Thomas that somehow, you know, Harlan Crow is controlling Clarence Thomas. And it started when he went on the D.C. circuit and they said he was dependent on Larry Silverman. Then it goes to, when he goes on to the Supreme Court and he's dependent on Justice Scalia, always dependent on his wife were his law clerks at the supreme, that the White House allegedly picked for him. So it's got this, it's really this disgusting attack on Justice Thomas that is connected to this, his friendship with Harlan Krupp.
- [34:02]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, you're exactly right. And there's a contempt that the left has, particularly to an African American who dares to be conservative. And part of the contempt is an intellectual arrogance that the left has for decades tried to caricature Justice Thomas as not very bright. He must be led by white conservatives because Lord knows he couldn't figure out those views on his own. And it was grotesquely offensive when liberals advanced that argument in 1991. And it has been grotesquely offensive ever since. And I got to tell you, look, I was in law school. I graduated law School in 1995. So Justice Thomas was a new Supreme Court justice when I was in law school. And the professors at Harvard Law School, most of the left wing students at Harvard Law School, they really did view Clarence Thomas as just a rube, just not bright enough really to even tie his own shoes. And the racist condescension was palpable. Now, I will say what's interesting is in the 30 plus years Justice Thomas has been on the Court, Justice Thomas, term after term has written extraordinary opinions. And for anyone that follows Supreme Court jurisprudence, there are real differences between Justice Thomas jurisprudence and Justice Scalia's jurisprudence and Chief Justice Rehnquist jurisprudence. But of all of the Justices, the Justice most likely to revisit longstanding precedent and to go back to first principles, to go back to what does the Constitution say? What was the original public meaning of the words used in the Constitution? And to go back and examine it carefully, there's no justice more willing to do so than Clarence Thomas. And he started very early on when he was brand new on the Court. Every term there would be one or two opinions that term where he would Write a very, very serious scholarly exposition of an area of law. Sometimes big, sexy areas of law that command a lot of attention, other times relatively obscure areas of law, but nonetheless that were consequential. And there was a palpable shift over the years, which is leftist for the first five, 10 years just decried him as an idiot. But you couldn't read the opinions that he wrote and maintain that they would say, by the way, well, he's not writing it. It's his law clerks. His law clerks are doing his work for him. Well, look, I clerked at the court. Every justice has law clerks. And yet somehow when Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote an opinion, it wasn't her law clerks. When, when Bill Brennan wrote an opinion, it wasn't his law clerks. It's only Justice Thomas's law clerks they think that are writing the opinions. Maybe you could argue that for a term or two, but at this point over three decades, there is a consistent thread of a unified view and understanding, a depth and scholarly gravitas that Justice Thomas has brought. And I gotta say, Mark, oddly enough, the left, particularly the legal academy, have been forced to pay him a backhanded compliment because you don't see them attacking him anymore as not up to the job, not bright enough. They did for years say, well, he just follows Scalia. Scalia is no longer with us and Justice Thomas is, is the leader of the more conservative Justices. He is, he is one of the most consequential justices to have ever lived. And now the left just says he's dangerous. That in a way is a concession because it is acknowledging the power of his ideas, but they nonetheless visit a special degree of hate on him that I think is directly related to his race and, and, and the view Democrats have that you must agree with them if you happen to be African American or if you happen to be Hispanic.
- [38:16]
Ben Ferguson
Mark. I want to ask you a question too that you just mentioned, Senator, and that's this. The Supreme Court is a tight knit group. A lot of times you will see Justices, you know, that won't necessarily criticize us or other Justices, you know, publicly. Why is it on an issue like this that by the way, would affect, I would assume, all of their lifestyles based on the number of trips that you heard this senator run through a few minutes ago. Are we not going to see some Justices come out and kind of say, hey, this is out of bounds to, you know, in the way that they're treating Justice Thomas? Are they just going to say, hey, we'll stay out of this, if you guys want to do this, it's on you.
- [38:57]
Mark Paoletta
Well, I think the attack on the court has actually galvanized them like we've never seen. You know, there'll be differences on their opinions, but you just saw the Chief justice, you know, in my view, give a stiff arm, rightly so, to the Judiciary Committee in terms of testifying. And then I think unprecedented. I don't think there's ever been nine justices signing the ethics opinion, the statement on ethics and recusals that they also issued. So I think there's a coming together that they realize they're under assault, that this is insult on the institution of the Supreme Court and that's good for no one. And so, you know, I think it's going to backfire on the left, this attack. The left always, you know, they do this a lot, but they are going after every justice or particularly hate Justice Thomas, as you said, Senator, I think it's in part, right. He's been so successful. He tried to destroy him in 91. I lived through, I went through that with him. But he's now ascendant, right. He is the leader of the court after 30 years, right. Set more than 700 opinions, as you said, he writes more opinions per year than any justice on the court. He has for many years. And the other thing, right, and as you said, one of the one legal commentator, a left wing commentator, said Justice Thomas is the most important legal thinker of the generation and the most significant judicial appointment of the last 40 years. That's Ian Millhiser from Vox, right, who's no fan of the justice but realizes his influence and more importantly, or as importantly, his clerks, his army of clerks. And Senator, you know this, right, they have gone out into the world. There are 15 judges, I think 15 judges on courts of appeals and other courts that are, is the next generation. He has solicitors General right out there, Scott Stewart, who was in Mississippi, he argued the Dobbs case. He has law clerks who are representing Harvard, the plaintiffs against Harvard and University of North Carolina in the affirmative action cases. Right. His clerks are changing the face of American jurisprudence from his ideas and from his example of courage to go out there and change the world and change the legal status quo. And that's what really enrages the left is that he's successful and they've taken all these shots at him and he has not bowed ever to these attacks. And he just, he's only 74 years old, right, which is amazing, you know, another decade on the court, maybe more. And so that's why they're attacking. I think that's why there's this fury. And these other justices, the younger justices who look up to Justice Thomas, you know, I helped out on the Gorsuch confirmation and you saw, you know, an email that was revealed at the Department of Justice where Neil Gorsuch was emailing with Greg Katz, who's on the D.C. circuit, talking about Justice Thomas dissent in Kelo. What a magnificent opinion. Opinion it was. And so it's this effect on these younger justices, I think that's shaping this court, that's providing the strength and courage for these guys both to do sort of bold jurisprudence and also personal courage in this attack. And I think it was significant. I think it's the year anniversary of this leak that none of the justices backed off that opinion. And I think that was significant. That, you know, unprecedented leaked, but nobody moved. And I think they showed courage under fire and I think that's significant going forward.
- [42:32]
Ben Ferguson
I want to ask another question of both of you and many people that are listening right now are going to want to know what can I do to help? What is it that I can do to stand with Justice Thomas and others that are coming under attack from the left and the way that they're doing this in Washington? Before you guys answer that, I want to tell you about our friends over at Chalk. Chalk is a company that is actually run by a bunch of patriots and they're here to help real American men take back your right to maximize your masculinity by boosting your testosterone levels up to 20% over 90 days. If you're feeling weakness and complacency, then you don't have to live. That way you can get back that strength and vitality by checking out chalk. Choq.com I've been taking chalk for now a couple of months and I can tell you the male vitality stack, it works. It's manufactured right here in the US Chalk's natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game changing effects on your energy, your focus, your mood. So maximize your masculinity today at Chalk. Choq.com use the promo code BEN and you'll get 35% off any Chalk subscription for life. Choq.com promo code BEN for 35 off senator I want to get you guys take on this and Mark, many people that listen to this podcast, they listen because they want to be involved. They don't want to just listen and walk away. They want to be active participants in the process and they want to make a difference for their country. What can they do to help Justice Thomas when it comes to what's happening today in dc?
- [44:16]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, let me say several things. First of all, they can share this podcast. You know what is guaranteed that the corrupt corporate media is not going to discuss these facts. They don't want to discuss these facts. They are active participants in the political campaign trying to drive Justice Thomas off the court. And by the way, there is a precedent. You look at Abe Fortas, who was a sitting justice of the Supreme Court and there was a scandal that came out, a financial scandal that came out, and Abe Fortas resigned from the court. And the left is looking to that example and they want to replicate it with Justice Thomas. They hate him and they want him off the court because he is such an effective justice. And so the media is, they're demonizing Justice Thomas. They're demonizing Harlan Crow. And Harlan Crow is a good and decent man. He's a very generous philanthropist. They're trying to attack him as some nefarious right wing billionaire. By the way, one of the slanders they direct at Harlan Crow is they say, oh, he collects Nazi memorabilia. So Harlan's home is essentially a museum. And he hosts events in Dallas all the time. There are all sorts of public and community events there. And he has hundreds, probably thousands of artifacts. He has lots of artifacts from World War II. He has actually outside his home a whole series of statues that were erected to communist leaders and that were toppled when those countries became liberated. They were statues that were toppled and he's collected them and erected them. Not because he admires communist leaders, but because he wants the world not to forget their horrors. The same is true with his World War II displays. He has lots of displays with, with, with artifacts from the Allies, the American armies. But he also has artifacts from the bad guys, from the Nazis. Not because he admires them, but the same reason that a museum displays what happens so that we remember our history. But the media doesn't want to tell you that. They want to paint him like some comic book villain twirling his mustache. And just remember, nobody in the media is engaged in any research trying to do an expose of any of the left wing justices. Clarence Thomas, as I said, has 109 reported trips. Justice Breyer had 233 reported trips. So nearly so more than twice as many. And it's worth noting if you say, well, okay, but, but, but there's not the nefarious billionaire. Well, actually Justice Breyer had multiple trips that were supported by the Chicago based Pritzker family, very wealthy billionaires, Democrats. Actually, Pritzker is the sitting governor, the Democrat governor of Illinois. And Justice Pryor took multiple TR supported by the Pritzker family. Not only that, in 2013, Justice Breyer flew on hedge fund manager David Rubenstein's private jet to a wedding in Nantucket because they're trying to say, well, it's different because Justice Thomas wanted a private jet. Well, so did Justice Breyer. And let me be clear, because I don't want what I'm saying here to be misconstrued. I am not suggesting that any of the justices are corrupt. I'm not suggesting Justice Breyer is or Justice Ginsburg or Justice Kagan or Justice Sotomayor. All of them were following the rules that were in place. But so was Justice Thomas. And the left and their cronies in the media are happy to apply a standard to Justice Thomas that doesn't apply to any other justice. And if you want to have a rule, apply it to everyone. But don't make up a rule after the fact and then pretend the guy you hate is the only person that violated the rule that did not exist. That's what the Democrats are doing. That's what the media is doing. And so your question, Ben, what can you do? Make sure people know these facts. Because if you listen to the rhetoric today at the hearing in Judiciary, Democrats are going to describe Justice Thomas as corrupt because he did the same things that the other justices have done over and over and over again. And that is fundamentally dishonest. Mark, your thoughts?
- [48:56]
Mark Paoletta
Yeah, I completely agree. The gaslighting, and we saw this going back to last year with Justice Thomas and his wife Ginny, right, where Ginny has her own career. She's been in the political square for many, many years. And yet when she speaks out an issue, Justice Thomas has to has to recuse himself and he should be impeached if he doesn't do that. When in fact, as you know, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's husband was at a firm and his firm appeared many times before the Supreme Court and she never recused herself and nobody said a word. So there's all of these examples like that Senator, of you know, the double standard, as you said. You know, I'm arkpailetta on Twitter. I write a lot. I have a lot of fact filled articles. I just wrote one today. It was published today on National Review about the sale of Justice Thomas mother's home to Harlan Crow, which was a beautiful story actually, that the vicious media has turned into somehow Clarence Thomas being Enriched at Harlequin Crow.
- [49:55]
Senator Ted Cruz
So tell us that story because that's another attack that's out there. And tell people what happened so they can actually understand the facts.
- [50:02]
Mark Paoletta
Sure. So Harlan Crow, you know, has got this great friendship with Clarence Thomas, but he recognizes that this man is an American hero, that he represents the best of America. So over the years, Harlan's been down and he's gone down there, he's had dinner with Justice Thomas family, with his mother, in his mother's home. This is the home that she lives in, which is his grandfather's, where Justice Thomas moved when he was 7. And his life was transformed from his abject poverty of growing up in Pinpoint and then into Savannah with his mom in a one room tenement into this humble but solid home in Savannah. And she's living there now. But Harlan had renovated the Carnegie Library, which was during segregation, the all black library in Savannah, where Clarence Thomas first learned to kind of love reading. And he gave a donation to renovate it and name a wing after Justice Thomas. Nothing ran to Justice Thomas in that regard. There was the oyster and crab factory, which was in Pinpoint, which Clarence Thomas grew up right next to. And Harlan renovated that into a museum. So he's down there in 2014 and he's near his mom's neighbor in the neighborhood, and he sees that it's a lot of drug dealers and just a bad place, not safe. And Harlan asked Justice Thomas, what are you going to do with this home when your mom passes? And his mom at the time was 85. And Justice Thomas says, I'm going to bulldoze it. And Harlan said, that would be terrible. This should be a museum. So he wanted to buy it in order to preserve it. And you know, at the time he talked to Justice Thomas about it, he didn't know that Justice Thomas even owned an interest in it. The house had passed from his grandfather when his grandfather died in 84, through his mother, his brother, who passed away in 2000. So his brother's estate now and his mother and Harlan Crow's team, he's in real estate. He's a developer. Looked at fair market value and offered a price of 133 for that home, plus two other plots, lots that used to have homes on them that his grandfather owned. They're one house over on the same street. So they entered into a contract and part of that contract was to give a life occupancy agreement to Justice Thomas mother so she could live there for the rest of her life. She's, you Know, fortunately, still living at 94, but at 85, had entered into this contract to purchase the home. This way he could own the property so that he could preserve it and it wouldn't be sold to somebody else. It wouldn't be bulldozed. It was a beautiful story. When he bought the crab and oyster factory, the cannery, several years earlier, the people who owned that, Harlan, wanted to buy that too, to be able to preserve it. So he gave them a life occupancy agreement in that home. So it's the same thing. People are saying, oh, you know, they're letting Harlan Crowe is letting his mother live there rent free. There's nothing of the sort. It was an agreement that made a lot of sense. So Harlan could buy the property to preserve it and then allow his mom to live there because he's in no rush. He just wanted to have his home so that he could, you know, he can preserve it and make it into a museum at the appropriate time. Beautiful story. Now, when Justice Thomas had, you know, in supporting his mother and helping her with the home down, he had poured a lot of money into this home. And so his capital costs and the improvements to the home were such that when the transaction happened, and Justice Thomas only got a third of that, 133, so it was around 40, $44,000. His capital costs were above that. And so when he was doing the, you know, thinking about this transaction, he thought, it's a loss. That's not income for me. So I'm not reporting any income on it. But then there's this section that's called transaction. It's called. It's called investments and trusts on the form. And I think he inherited this home many years ago, hadn't really thought of it as an investment or trust and didn't put down on that part of the form, it says any transaction over $1,000. So on that part, he didn't put it down there because he thought, I didn't make any money, wasn't thinking of that section and didn't put it down. I think he's reviewing his forms and he's anticipated, I think, to amend that part of the form, but that's nothing. Amendments happen all the time. Right. As you mentioned, Senator, justices amend their forms because they realize they did something. They need to amend it. Justice Sotomayor last year amended her 2016 form because she failed to list six trips that she had taken that were all paid for, you know, flights and accommodations. Justice Jackson forgot to mention disclose her husband's malpractice consulting fees for many years on her form. And she put that down belatedly on her Supreme Court forms. So nothing unusual to do that. So again, it was this transaction where you know Harlan Crow because as you've described, and he's an incredible patriot, he is sort of preserving the Clarence Thomas story, right? This amazing. And I won't go through it, you did a beautiful job in the intro of where Justice Thomas was born and how he came, you know, sort of came through life is just this inspiring story. And so Harlan has, over the years, long before he purchased Justice Thomas mother's home, had purchased several things in the Savannah Pinpoint area to preserve this heritage and the life story of Justice Thomas.
- [56:12]
Senator Ted Cruz
So let me underscore two things you said because I think that there was a lot of very important information you said, number one, that Harlan Crow purchased this home in order to preserve it, in order to turn it into a museum. Now if you think about it, there are museums to practically every former President of the United States. There are museums to Supreme Court justices, there are museums to senators and members of Congress, there are museums to governors. We normally think of erecting museums to recognize people who have been historically significant as a public service, as recognizing their impact. By any measure, Clarence Thomas life has been historically significant. You also take this home in the context Justice Thomas autobiography is entitled My Grandfather's Son. It's a beautiful autobiography. I have actually given Justice Thomas autobiography to teenagers, in particular to African American teenagers, to inspire what is possible. The journey that he traveled, facing real and serious discrimination, facing real and serious hardship, and rising to the very pinnacle of the legal profession is powerful and inspiring. It's inspiring to all of us. And so, you know, I for one am grateful that Harlan is stepping forward to commemorate that history to provide for a museum. But it is a fairly bizarre concept that by creating a museum there's somehow something untoward or corrupt on that, particularly a museum where Justice Thomas lost money. And the sort of related notion that, well, but Harlan Crow didn't evict his 94 year old mother from the home. If you're gonna turn it into a museum, you know what? He might have been the mustache twirling villain if he'd thrown the 94 year old out and said, sorry, you're on the street lady, good luck. Like, like, it's not a strange notion to say we're gonna buy this and turn it into a museum, but we're gonna allow you to live in your home until the time comes that you pass that. That is a Normal step. And then. So the one little attack they have that has a tiny purchase is, you said that, well, technically, he should have reported it. Now, I will note, as you did, Supreme Court justices amend their disclosures all the time. I will tell you as a senator, I have to file a financial disclosure every year. Every senator does, every House member does. The directions on those financial disclosures are complicated. They're arcane. There's a whole team of lawyers in the Senate who advise you. And so you'll have a question about a particular transaction. How do I record it? And by the way, that team of lawyers sometimes changes their mind. So one year they'll tell you to record a particular transaction one way, and the next year they say, no, no, no, we've decided, you record it another way. And so it is arcane. There's a lot of gray areas. And so justices, and justices also have lawyers at the Supreme Court who advise them on that. Justice Thomas has said he relied on the advice of the lawyers at the Supreme Court for how to fill out his form. And if it is the argument of the left that amending your form shows, aha, you did something wrong or corrupt, I'm willing to wager something. I can't prove this, but you could actually research it and find out the answer pretty quick. But I'll wager you 20 bucks, Ben, that every single Democrat on the Judiciary Committee who has been on the committee five years or more has amended their form at least once.
- [60:09]
Ben Ferguson
I was gonna bet you that. But I was gonna go for a hundred because that's how. That's how certain I was that what you were about to say is absolutely right. Cause, like, there's no way they haven't been amended.
- [60:19]
Senator Ted Cruz
Yeah, look, I. Maybe the brand new members haven't done it yet because they haven't been there long enough. But if you've been there five years. Look, amendments are just part of the process. And it's complicated. It's Byzantine. And I'm not saying that the senators who've amended their forms are corrupt, but it is absurd to demonize Clarence Thomas because a museum is being erected in order to recognize his historical contribution. And if that's corrupt. You know, last I checked, there's an Obama museum. Last I checked, there's a Bill Clinton museum. The standard, by the way, Thurgood Marshall's childhood home is preserved as a museum. The standard ought to apply across the board fairly. And all of this attack is a nakedly hypocritical political attack. It is not a substantive criticism on the merits.
- [61:21]
Ben Ferguson
No doubt about it. Don't forget, as the Senator mentioned earlier, we published this on Tuesday. We will do it again on Friday and get you the latest news of the day there. But this was an important with with this issue up in Washington on Tuesday. That's why we published a day early. Please make sure you share this podcast with your family and friends as well so that they can hear what's going on and what the left is trying to do here. Mark, it was a pleasure to have you on as well. Thank you for joining Center Take Cruise Night tonight. Don't forget, hit the share button. Share this with your family and friends and write us a five star review. We'll see you back here on Friday morning.