All Hail King Clarence

Question: Do you have no shame, your honor?

Answer: Not a single drop.

For those readers who keep up with the somewhat questionable behavior by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the most recent revelations go way beyond questionable.

Disgusting, nauseating, unbelievable are better descriptors of His Honor's ethical lapses by accepting 38 trips reported over several decades, all funded by ultra-wealthy and/or industry titans.

Destinations were resorts scattered across the globe, with jets and yachts providing the transportation. Additionally, international sporting events were enjoyed by Justice Thomas and his wife, Ginni, with seating in luxury boxes that contained all the usual amenities.

And just who are these money men that are so interested in the care and comfort of the Thomas' that they would regularly spend thousands of dollars ensuring the pair could “live like the rich and famous?” Billionaires Harlan Crow, David Sokol, Wayne Huizenga and Paul "Tony" Novelly all befriended the couple after he was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1991 by President Ronald Reagan and barely confirmed by the Senate 53 yes, 47 no.

All deny ever speaking to the judge about any matter before his court. Rather, during the many hours and days of the numerous vacations, mostly sports, family matters and "how to help young people" dominated their conversations.

For me, the most galling part of the attached article is the spoken and unspoken attitude that no ethical violations occurred, that most of the largesse reported by Pro Publica need not be revealed to the public because – and get this – Thomas and other Supremes believe they are immune from any reporting requirements that must be routinely filed by other elected or appointed officials. For example, even as a lowly state legislator in Oklahoma for 28 years, I and others like me had to file extensive personal financial statements, including income earned by spouses. In doing so, interested parties or political opponents should and would be able to identify conflicts of interest when votes were cast, although, in fact, rarely were such complaints lodged with the generally toothless tiger known as the Oklahoma Ethics Commission.

For our United States Supreme Court, there's no ethics tiger at all, toothless or not.