Lois Eisenberg authored a letter (May 4) decrying the alleged corruption of Clarence Thomas. Typically, she provides no proof of her assertions. In fact, none of the leftists who submit letters ever provide any proof of their outrageous claims. But they know one thing, they hate Clarence Thomas and they hate the current makeup of the Supreme Court and you will hear nothing but whining and crying about it endlessly until they get their way. It’s what they do!
Let us take a look at the dubious claims made by Ms. Eisenberg. First, she claims Judge Thomas reported income from a defunct real estate firm. She claims this is unethical, but doesn’t state why. This is where the left excels, making charges without proof when a simple search can explain the mistake. Thomas and his wife had a real estate firm called Ginger Ltd. Partnership. The partnership was dissolved and a new one called Ginger Holdings LLC was formed. Thomas and his wife made the horrific mistake of continuing to use the Ginger Ltd., instead of the new company, Ginger LLC, on their tax forms. Wow, great find, Ms. Eisenberg! You really cracked the corruption empire by Judge Thomas on this one. Here’s proof, learn from this practice, my leftist friends:
Next, Ms. Eisenberg makes a claim that Thomas traveled and it was paid for by a third party. Once again she offers few details, just an unsupported claim that somehow accepting travel must have nefarious motivations. Assume for a second, despite no proof given, that her assertion is true, that Thomas accepted travel paid for by others and it was corrupt. Did it bother Ms. Eisenberg when Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg took 157 trips, including 28 abroad? How about when Judge Stephen Breyer took 233 trips, including 63 abroad? Here is the text of Sen. Ted Cruz asking a witness about these contradictions: bit.ly/41fXok8.
The witness and Sen. Cruz both said taking this many trips wasn’t a sign of corruption.
It’s clear Ms. Eisenberg has a problem with the practice of accepting trips. I would probably join her in opposition IF her opposition was fair. But it’s not and it never will be, otherwise she would express disgust in Justice Sonia Sotomayor not reporting six trips she took, contrary to the ethics rules of the Supreme Court.
Were she fair and honest, Ms. Eisenberg might have a problem with Sotomayor accepting over $3 million from a book deal at Random House, then failing to recuse herself from a case before the court involving Random House:
I guess corruption is OK as long as it’s your guy, right, Ms. Eisenberg?
The political rhetoric in this country shows no signs of slowing and it appears, at least to me, that it’s getting worse. Columns like the one Ms. Eisenberg and fellow leftists submit do nothing to provide balance. There is no effort made to attempt to calm people and provide balance, only to further inflame them. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Schumer made this outrageous statement: “I want to tell you, (Neil) Gorsuch, I want to tell you, (Brett) Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Shortly after this comment there was an assassination attempt made on Kavanaugh and his family. These words should be universally condemned but they won’t, because Schumer is your guy, right, Ms. Eisenberg?
Do not ever lecture us on heated rhetoric until you can condemn the worst of it from your side.