But for the second time in a year, polling indicates that Americans see something objectionable in what Thomas has done and are concerned about the line between his jurisprudence and his personal life.
A new survey out Wednesday, from the Economist and YouGov, finds that the public broadly disagrees with Thomas’s choice to accept the luxury trips without disclosing them. Nearly 6 in 10 disapprove — including 42 percent “strongly” — while only about a quarter approve.
That comes with the caveat that many Americans haven’t digested the news: Twenty-one percent say they’ve heard “a lot” about it, while 46 percent say they’ve heard “a little.” So it seems the responses are somewhat in the abstract — expressing views about something that is described to them.
But it’s worth emphasizing that in describing the situation, the poll cites the conservative justice by name. And even Republicans are more likely to disapprove (4 in 10) than approve (a little more than 3 in 10) of Thomas’s conduct.
This is a conservative icon — the same poll shows two-thirds of Republicans have a favorable view of Thomas, compared to just 13 percent unfavorable — but this news apparently doesn’t smell right to plenty of them.
Americans are somewhat less convinced that Thomas broke the law: Forty-three percent wager that he did, and 28 percent say he didn’t. But again, even a substantial number of Republicans say Thomas crossed that line: Twenty-four percent say he broke the law; 47 percent say he did not.
As for whether he did? Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court, with an exception for “personal hospitality.” Thomas has cited the fact that Crow did not personally have a case reach the Supreme Court, though critics note there have been cases that, logically, would have had an impact on Crow’s business. Thomas also said he was advised that the luxury trips qualified for the personal hospitality exemption because Crow is a friend. But last month a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts’ policymaking body, clarified those rules to state that stays at commercial properties and trips on private jets, which Thomas accepted, must be reported. Thomas said in a statement that “it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future.”
It’s the second time in a year that such questions have been raised about Thomas — and that Americans have taken a dim view of the justice’s ethical decisions.
Last year, it was revealed that Thomas’s wife, conservative activist Ginni Thomas, had exchanged text messages with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, strategizing about the effort to overturn the 2020 election. A poll from Quinnipiac University soon showed that Americans said by a significant margin, 52 percent to 39 percent, that Thomas should recuse himself from cases related to the election, which Thomas had not done. (Indeed, Thomas provided the only note of dissent in the court’s decision to grant access to White House records related to Jan. 6. Even at the time, it was known that his wife had publicly criticized the Jan. 6 committee’s work.)
Again, even in that case, many Republicans seemed to see something amiss. The poll showed 28 percent of them said Thomas should recuse himself from such cases.
Despite the concerns, there are limited options when it comes to what can be done about it, from either an ethical or legal standpoint. The justices largely police themselves. If nothing else, though, the episodes would seem to highlight calls by some for an ethics code of conduct, which applies to other judges but not Supreme Court justices.
But The Washington Post reported this year that the justices have discussed that for at least four years, without any consensus.
