The New Yorker Radio Hour - Jane Mayer on Justice Clarence Thomas, and the Music Critic Hanif Abdurraqib on Concert Merch

Episode Date: April 21, 2023

The cascade of revelations published by ProPublica concerning Justice Clarence Thomas—the island-hopping yachting adventures underwritten by a right-wing billionaire patron, the undisclosed real estate transactions—raises questions about his proximity to power and money. “I think it stretches common sense,” Jane Mayer tells David Remnick, “to think that a judge could be independent when he takes that much money from one person.” Mayer notes that other Justices, including the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have accepted large gifts from politically connected donors. A deepening public distrust in the integrity of the Supreme Court, Mayer thinks, is dangerous for democracy. “The glue that holds us together is the rule of law in this country,” she says. “People have to believe when they go in front of a court, and in particular the Supreme Court, . . . that it’s justice that’s going to prevail.” New Yorker Radio Hour listeners, we want to hear from you.  We have a few questions about the show and how you listen to it. The survey takes about twenty minutes, and your feedback will help us make our podcast better.  Take the survey here.

This is The New Yorker Radio Hour, a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Welcome to The New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. Compared to presidents and legislators, the justices of the Supreme Court are beholden to no one. Concerned only with the law, with the Constitution, they pretend to sit majestically, serenely beyond grubby politics. They have no campaigns to finance, no higher positions to angle for. this is the source of their integrity. Or at least that's the theory. But the cascade of revelations coming out about Justice Clarence Thomas

suggest something else, something far less high-flown. There's the glitzy vacations and the island-hopping yachting adventures underwritten by a right-wing billionaire patron. There's the undisclosed real estate deals. And then there's Thomas's wife, Ginny Thomas, and her ties, financial and political, to various conservative groups, as well as her full-throated support of Donald Trump

and the attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. There are perhaps precedence for this kind of thing, but Thomas seems to have taken matters to the next level. The New Yorker's Jane Mayer co-wrote the book Strange Justice about Clarence Thomas almost 30 years ago. Last year, she reported on Ginny Thomas's influence in Washington, and now Jane is working on a book about the conservative movement to control the courts.

Jane, you've been covering Clarence Thomas for a very long time, right from the beginning. What stands out to you from these revelations that were first published in ProPublica? I suppose one of the things that amazed me about the ProPublica story, which was really rigorously reported, was the extent to which Clarence Thomas has been a repeat and kind of chronic offender when it comes to making public disclosures that Supreme Court justices are supposed to make about their finances. This isn't the first time. This has been going on for years. It's just maybe the most egregious examples of it. Well, what's the history? Let's go back and and go through it. Well, if you go back to 2004, the Los Angeles Times wrote a story at that point,

saying that Clarence Thomas had taken a couple of very expensive gifts from a billionaire from Texas named Harlan Crow, whose family fortune was made in the real estate business. And Harlan Crow had sort of, for reasons unknown, given Clarence Thomas an original Bible that had been owned by the abolitionist Frederick Douglas, which was worth $19,000, and had also given to Clarence Thomas, who was on the Supreme Court back in 2004, a $15,000 bust of Abraham Lincoln. And the LA Times reached out to Harlan Crowe and asked, what is this about? And he said, well, I really like Clarence Thomas, and I knew he liked Frederick Douglass, and I saw this in an auction catalog, and just gave it to him. And that was the last.

last time that Clarence Thomas disclosed private travel, including at that time, he disclosed that Harlan Crow had paid for his travel to a kind of a very shi-she-exclusive men's gathering called Bohemian Grove. Oh, they all get together and they pee on the lawn and they have a very great time. So that is what's always said. But what are the ethical considerations here? What's the what are the guidelines that are set down by the Supreme Court? And in what way was, even in 2004, was Clarence Thomas in violation of them, if he indeed was? Well, what was interesting was in 2004, he actually was complying with the regulations, which require disclosure. But then there was bad publicity that came out of it, and he stopped complying. So if you reported it, there's nothing

wrong with it. Well, up to a point. The rules for Supreme Court justices, when it comes to financial disclosures are very lax. But there are a few categories of financial disclosures that have to be made publicly. And they include real estate transactions and gifts. But if a justice can say that the gifts fall under the category of personal hospitality from friend, then they don't need to be disclosed. And so basically it's been understood by over the years to mean, you know, if you go to a friend's house for dinner. Right. They give you a lamb chop and a salad. That's nice. Right. A yachting vacation in Indonesia, that's more complicated. Exactly. So it should have been disclosed. And are there things that even Supreme Court just supposed to disclose, but also not to take? Well, yes,

there are. There are actually, there is actually a law that applies to all judges, including Supreme Court justices that says that they are not supposed to preside over a case in which a family member has some kind of interest in the outcome, and they're certainly not supposed to take gifts from people who have cases in front of them. In 2011, it came to light that Thomas hadn't disclosed hundreds of thousands of dollars, more than half a million dollars, that his wife Ginny Thomas had earned from the Heritage Foundation. That's quite a substantial amount of money. Did that trespass any ethics violations?

Yes, yes again. That's why he is a chronic offender on this subject. He was supposed to have disclosed a spouse's income. And he said, oh, he just had misunderstood the filing requirements. And he amended his filings to reflect that she had earned, I think it was between six $700,000 over the years from the Heritage Foundation, which is an organization, a conservative think tank that has very distinct legal issues and a legal agenda that it promotes through cases in the Supreme Court.

Does Harlan Crow have any cases that are either in front of the Supreme Court, were in front of the Supreme Court, or potentially in front of the Supreme Court? He has said he does. He has no cases that have been in front of the Supreme Court. of Clarence Thomas, and Clarence Thomas has said the same. And so they have said that this is just a friendship, and what's wrong with that? Well, I ask you that question. What's the fuss? It's a lot of money from one benefactor. If you step back, basically, what are judges supposed to be? They're supposed to be honest.

They're supposed to be independent. And I think it sort of stretches common sense to think that a judge could be independent when he takes that much money from one person. I mean, and what are we talking about here? Maybe millions of dollars worth of gifts and travel and vacations from Harlan Crow. Is there any history to this in the Supreme Court? have other justices, liberal, conservative, or centrist that we know of, taken gifts like this? Well, first of all, the problem is you don't know what you don't know as a reporter, right? If these things are undisclosed.

But there's certainly other justices who have taken sort of lavish trips that are paid for by others. Maybe not as – I don't think anything anywhere near as lavish as this Indonesian trip or as regular. as going every summer, as Clarence Thomas appears to have done, to an estate that Harlan Crows has up in the Adirondacks. But there are other justices who certainly have gone on junkets that are paid for by others. And I think that they are justices both of the liberal persuasion and of the conservative ones.

Mike, for example, in 2018, Ruth Bader Ginsburg got a private tour of Israel that was paid for by an Israeli billionaire named Morris Khan. who has had business before the court. I don't remember there being a giant fuss about that. Well, maybe there should have been. I mean, personally, I feel like all of this is very troubling. And I think that we know from when Antonin Scalia died,

that he died at a hunting ranch, basically, that was privately owned and on a trip that was undisclosed. We wouldn't have known about it except for the fact that he suddenly and unexpectedly died there. And it turned out he had taken oodles of similar hunting trips over the years that were paid for by private individuals. How different is this from members of the executive branch, White House staff, presidents themselves, and members of Congress? There are far fewer disclosure requirements for the Supreme Court than for those in any other branch of the government. And the other problem is really that unlike the other branches of the government, there's no enforcement mechanism for the Supreme Court. So it's basically the honor system.

And there's no way to deal with violations, really, which is why we're in this situation here with Clarence Thomas. You know, how do you deal with this at this point? There's no inspector general at the Supreme Court. There's no ethics advisor at the Supreme Court. it is just the justices are trusted to do the right thing. Now, the question arises what's to be done about this? One of the most vocal proponents of ethics reform at the court that's been going on for years has been Democratic Senator Sheldon White House.

So I know you've talked to any number of times. He's calling for Justice Thomas to be referred to the Attorney General for potential violations of government ethics laws. And on Tuesday, we heard the allegations. now with a judicial committee that could, at least in theory, make that referral. So explain what this committee is and how this could all work. What's ahead for Justice Thomas? So there is an organization called the U.S. Judicial Conference, which basically administers the courts. And it is the body that sort of sets the requirements for things such as these disclosures.

It interprets the Ethics and Government Act and oversees it. administration for the courts. And so what's happened here is congressional Democrats and several watchdog groups have demanded that the U.S. Judicial Conference open an investigation into Clarence Thomas, looking into his lack of disclosures and that if they find that these omissions were willful, that they then make a recommendation to the Justice Department that it opened an investigation into Clarence Thomas. And where could that lead? It could lead to a fine. It could lead to civil charges.

It could even lead to criminal charges, all depending on what the circumstances are. I would say it's very far-fetched to imagine that this would lead to criminal charges. But what it would also lead to, potentially, is just a widening scandal here that will create pressure, increased pressure on Clarence Thomas and on Chief Justice John Roberts to do something? Well, right. You raise John Roberts, Chief Justice, and if I'm watching MSNBC, I'm hearing a lot of people say,

Justice Roberts must do something. If I'm watching, of course, Fox, I'm hearing a lot of people saying this is just a liberal vendetta. Let's stick with the Roberts part for the moment. What can Roberts do? What power does he actually have here? And are other members of the court

either present or past, similarly culpable? Well, as Chief Justice, he's known to be someone who cares a lot about the reputation of the court and is an institutionalist, and it's clear that this is putting a cloud over the court. So one suspects that he cares about the situation, but what can he do? he has said that he is considering and looking into and conferring with the justices about the possibility that they will agree to abide by the same ethics rules that the lower courts do. They've been looking at this for a number of years, though, and it doesn't seem that Chief Justice Roberts has made much progress on it. In other words, there's no inclination on the part of Chief Justice Roberts to see. single out

Justice Thomas in any way? I think it's really unlikely. I mean, basically, the court has been described to me as nine separate law firms. Each one of these justices has their own

kind of law firm and confers among with its own clerks and people and the harmony that exists on the court to the extent that it has is because no one really tells the others what to do. Again, it's the honor system at the Supreme Court. And if there is

dishonor, there's really only one remedy that's ever been spelled out in the Constitution. And that's impeachment. The drama of Clarence Thomas has been going on for a very long time. He was nominated to the court by George H.W. Bush. And of course, his confirmation hearings were unforgettable. And it seems like there's been a great deal of drama along the way, despite his relative silence, at least on the bench. Where is this story going? We've even heard time and again that his health is not the best, that he might retire. I think optimally he'd prefer to retire when there's a Republican in the presidency. Where is this story going for Clarence Thomas? You know, I mean, it's hard to say, but Clarence Thomas has a history of being defiant.

in the face of criticism. In a way, it seems to emboldened him to sort of double down. It is worth thinking about, though, how some, in the modern era, there have been Supreme Court justices who have been forced off, or at least one, and that's Abe Fortis, who in 1969 was forced off of the Supreme Court because of revelations about his financial wheeling and dealing with a former client. The ape fortis example, though, which is absolutely apt, is different, though, in kind, isn't it from Clarence Thomas? Clarence Thomas, you know, he has got a friend. He just happens to be a billionaire. He, you know, his hospitality is, is glitzier than most, as opposed to financial willings and dealings to benefit the pocketbook of a justice. Yes and no. I mean, the second story that ProPublica published was about a real estate deal involving Clarence Thomas and Harlan Crow.

It's a deal in which money went right into Clarence Thomas's pockets. He owned a house in Savannah, Georgia, and his mother was living in the house, and they sold the house to Harlan Crow. And so that money went to Clarence Thomas. And interestingly, Clarence Thomas's mother has been living in that house ever since. She still lives there today. I think she's 94 years old, rent-free, thanks to Harlan Crow. That seems even more egregious. I think it's a very dangerous situation for Clarence Thomas really. This is a, because there is a specific category of finance that has to be disclosed according to the 1978 Ethics and Government Act, and it's real estate transactions over $1,000. And this one was for something like a hundred and 33,000.

dollars. There's really no way to argue that he shouldn't have disclosed this. He should have disclosed this. He has said it was an oversight and that he didn't understand. He just forgot. That's what he said. He's a Supreme Court justice and he didn't understand the requirements. That seems to bend if not break credulity. Yeah. Jane, if it's true, and it seems that it is, that trust in the Supreme Court or the integrity of the court, is getting lower all the time. What effect does that have on our political lives? Oh, I think it's very dangerous for democracy. I mean, the glue that holds us together is the rule of law in this country. And people have to believe when they go in front of a court and particularly in front of the Supreme Court that they're getting a fair shake and that this isn't just politics.

and that whether they are a Republican defendant or a Democratic one or whatever else, that it's justice that's going to prevail, not just partisan politics. Jane Mayer is a staff writer at The New Yorker, and she's the co-author of the book Strange Justice. This is The New Yorker Radio Hour with more to come. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. Hanif Abdurakib is a New Yorker contributor, and he's based in his hometown of Columbus, Ohio. He's a poet, an essayist, the author of a number of books largely about music. And like most true music lovers, Hanif is also a fan of the stuff around the music, the merch.

He's got a huge collection of concert t-shirts, and he agreed to show me some of his favorites. So Hanif, you've picked out some concert t-shirts and some music that kind of go together, and you're going to share them with us today. How big is this famous collection of teas? I have 73 as of right now, but this weekend, I'm like... 73 tour shirts and one tie. In one tie, yeah. I mean, truly, maybe not even one tie. How did you get into getting vintage tour t-shirts?

You know, I just, I'm fascinated by the kind of like wearable ephemera that is attached to music. I got, when I was young, I was really into pins, you know, band pins from years and even. years and years ago. And then I was very into kind of backstage passes, which you can still buy online. I have a small collection of just backstage passes from bands and concerts. But the shirts are fascinating. The shirts really are fascinating me because not only are they, and it's like a more extreme version of going to a thrift store. But yeah, I have 73 tour shirts this weekend. I'm going to an auction right down the road to be it on a couple other ones. So by the end of the weekend, I'll maybe have 75. So what's your key source for this stuff? Is it eBay or something more

specialized. It started out on Etsy because Etsy dealers are a little more, you can find very specific, like this dealer has all the old hardcore punk shirts, this dealer has old R&B shirts. But now I have, much like with my sneaker collection, I have like a person who sources these for me. Because otherwise, I would, you've got a guy. I've got a guy. Because otherwise, I would spend all my time just like online doing this. And it's one of those things that I noticed is taking up so much my time. I don't care if you have a lot of Arthur. That wouldn't be productive. What is the first t-shirt we're talking about?

And the first song that goes with it. The first shirt is, I don't know if it's this one. This is a shirt of the band De Barge, the singing group, the family group De Barge. This is from their Rhythm of the Night Tour. And so this shirt is like a teal blue kind of thing. And it has the band's name above a red square that they're all in. And the thing that I love about DeBarge in general and that I love about this shirt is that, you know, with DeBarge, these photos in the 80s, they all look dressed like they're all going out on a very different night on the town. And there's a lot of big shoulders.

A lot of big shoulders. A lot of primary colors in those suits. Huge primary colors. A lot of large pocket squares. All right. Let's hear a little music from DeBars. What's the song? The song is Rhythm of the Night, the great single that this shirt was based off of.

The music video for this song is very delightful. I can only imagine we are dancing on Zoom here. It all comes back. It all comes back. Okay, honey, next shirt. Next shirt is this shirt from the Judd's farewell tour, which is, you know, the Judds I love and adore. And this shirt is just kind of them in a blue square, their name is in red. holding a guitar.

Some seriously big hair. Very big hair. And it's a farewell tour. So you're getting the whole tour. You're getting the whole tour itinerary. Did you see the Judds when they were through? I did not. No.

Too young. No. I mean, in 91 when they came through, I was maybe five years old. No, six or seven years old. So I was a little too young. Knock it off. Knock it off. All right.

Let's hear the Judds. What are they singing? They got, why not me? Which is one of my favorite songs. I adore this song. It's both, like a classic Judd's song, it's both sad and a little sweet. So what does this song tell us about you, honey?

I think, so what I love about the Judds in general, but particularly why not me, is so much of their music is steeped in kind of like longing and feeling on the outside of an emotion that they cannot get into or the outside of an affection that they can't otherwise access. And I feel like that has, in some ways, that is a defining point of anguish for, for I think, like, me and everyone in my circle, we all grew up like emo kids and punk kids who felt really outside of,

outside of many things except for our own one or two really fluorescent feelings. Like that. Next t-shirt. All right. I have a shirt that is as old as me. Jimmy Cliff from the Power and the Glory tour 1984. Oh, I like that. How much you want for that? This I might, I could just send to you in part because it no longer fits me. Jimmy Cliff on the front, Power in the Glory, written across his head. And I just, I adore this shirt. This is actually one of the first

vintage tour shirts I ever got. What are we going to hear from Jimmy Cliff? Many Rivers to Cross, a classic. There we go. I love that organ opening. Yeah, it's perfect. What an incredible voice he had. Yeah, the intro, the organ to vocal intro is one of my favorite moments, and I think all of music may be.

I'm really sorry I never got to see Jimmy Cliff. I don't think he's performing anymore. Yeah, yeah, that's a dream. It really is. It really is. There's a handful of artists who I think, I think I mourn the fact that I, I've missed them. And then when I listen to their music,

it's like that morning returns anew. Who's in that crew? A lot of it with me is folks that I was maybe old enough to go see. And I just didn't. And then we lost them. Late era, Johnny Cash. Phyllis Hyman. I really love Phyllis Hyman.

That's someone I miss. This is the one inheritance I got from my dad. We didn't have much money, but he would take us to see music and musicians that I didn't think anything of it. of the time. And then I realized, oh my God, I got to see Lewis Armstrong when I was 11, you know, or Dave Brubeck or Ella Fitzgerald. And yeah, it's a very lucky thing. Yeah. Yeah.

Hanif, thank you so much. Be well and good luck at the auction this weekend. Thank you, David. I really appreciate it. The New Yorkers, Hanif Abdurakib. He wrote for us recently on the great musical collective known as Chocolate Genius Incorporated. You can read that essay at New York. New Yorker.com. I'm David Remnick. Thanks for listening to the program today. I hope you'll join us next time.

The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Merrill Garbess of Tune Arts with additional music by Louis Mitchell. This episode was produced by Max Walton, Brita Green, Adam Howard, Cala Leah, Avery Keatley, David Krasnow, Jeffrey Masters, Louis Mitchell, and Gophon in Putabuele with guidance from Emily Boutin and assistance from Harrison Keithline, Michael May, David Gable, and Meher Batia. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Cherina Endowment Fund.