[untitled]
5 comments
Clarence Thomas is a good legal thinker and is worth having on the court. He has a very specific world view that I don't think he would be likely to defect against. The only real argument that might work is deterrence, but that's probably not worth it.
Technically, isn't what Clarence did legal because the ethics rules weren't in place at the time?
Frankly, only fools believe in ethics anymore. There is only a personal cost to having them that causes you to lose time after time in life.
Having ethical standards is basically chopping off your arm at this point.
Having ethical standards is basically chopping off your arm at this point.