It is no mere coincidence that the left-wing activist group ProPublica released its latest attack on Justice Clarence Thomas just hours before the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on a case funded by another left-wing activist group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, holding that former President Donald Trump is an “insurrectionist” and therefore ineligible to appear on a presidential ballot.
ProPublica’s latest story is as overhyped and underwhelming as previous chapters in its long and tedious series of stories focusing exclusively on the financial lives of the conservative members of the Supreme Court.
A SUPREME ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY FROM COLORADO COURTS
There are a slew of cases heading to the Supreme Court with direct implications for the 2024 presidential race. ProPublica’s assault on Thomas is part of a coordinated campaign to press conservative justices to undercut Trump’s campaign and also to undermine the legitimacy of the court and a second Trump administration, if there is one.
This news organization regards Trump as unfit for office, but excluding him from the White House should be accomplished at the ballot box, not by a continuous leftist campaign that undermines our country’s already weakened institutions.
The latest lame attack on Thomas is based on a single interview with a congressman who claims that in one conversation 23 years ago, Thomas said that if Congress did not raise justices' pay, “one or more justices will leave soon.” ProPublica then notes a memo in which Thomas makes the case for a pay raise.
What ProPublica fails to report is that a decade earlier, Congress tied its own pay raises to those of justices, so justices' salaries were not keeping up with inflation. Federal judges have since won the right for cost-of-living adjustments free from congressional meddling. ProPublica does not mention this.
Nor does it mention that in 2007, Thomas sold his autobiography for millions of dollars. It hit No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list.
Thomas has been rock solid in his jurisprudence since his first day on the bench. One may disagree with his legal reasoning over the years, although we generally do not, but both his approach and thinking have been consistent from day one. As hard as it tries, ProPublica, like other far-left activists, fails to identify a single case in which it is possible to claim Thomas switched his vote because of gifts received from wealthy friends.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The Washington, D.C., swamp is crawling with billionaires, often foreign billionaires, whose money flows to activist groups that stop at nothing to ruin the lives of conservative office-holders and empower the Democratic Party.
Both ProPublica’s latest attack on Thomas and CREW’s latest attack on Trump are part of this campaign. Everything these organizations do and say should be viewed with this in mind.