Senate Democrats backed down Thursday from subpoenaing conservatives in a probe of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas after Republicans threatened subpoenas in scandals linked to prominent liberals such as George Soros.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, Democrats were poised to subpoena Harlan Crow, a GOP megadonor and friend to Justice Thomas, and conservative activist Leonard Leo.
But the committee’s Republicans came armed with their own list of subpoenas.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee Republican, moved to subpoena:
• Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s staff and her publisher about her book sales;
• Documents from the estate of deceased millionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein including flight logs of his private jet, the Lolita Express;
• Health and Human Services Department officials about how refugee resettlement lost track of 85,000 children;
• Justice Department officials about Chinese spies in America;
• Documents related to political donations linked to DOJ special counsel Robert Mueller’s staff in probing President Trump;
• DOJ and FTC documents from the ongoing probe of Elon Musk.
An aide for Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said he planned to offer subpoenas for Mr. Soros and the billionaire liberal activist’s son Alex Soros for information about their Supreme Court activism.
“There are real issues we should be talking about,” Mrs. Blackburn said. “The world is on fire but what you have chosen to do is to launch an assault on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.”
Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard J. Durbin abruptly adjourned the meeting before getting to the subpoena vote.
Mr. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, insisted his side was not issuing subpoenas to “score political points.”
“The committee is not engaged in a vendetta against conservatives,” he said.
Mr. Durbin later issued a statement saying the committee ran out of time before getting to the subpoenas. He said Democrats remained united in their effort to force Mr. Crow and Mr. Leo to share information about their relationships with the Justices.
The Democrat-run committee is going after these two prominent men as part of a probe of how people gain private access to Supreme Court Justices. It is also part of a push by Senate Democrats to impose an ethics code on the Justices, who currently make their own rules of conduct.
Senate Democrats have been going back and forth with Mr. Crow for months about his financial relationship with Justice Thomas.
In May, the committee’s Democrats asked Mr. Crow to provide detailed information about his friendship with Justice Thomas and detail certain gifts or expenses he’s made on his behalf.
Mr. Crow, through his attorneys, declined to answer some of the questions, saying it suggested a separation of powers conflict.
The Democrats said Mr. Leo refused to provide the committee with information about his relationship with the justices.
Mr. Leo has accused the Democrats of political retaliation and seeking to destroy the Supreme Court.
The committee’s probe follows a series of news reports about Justice Thomas and his friendship with Mr. Crow, a billionaire real estate developer.
ProPublica reported that Mr. Crow paid private school tuition at Hidden Lake Academy and Randolph-Macon Academy for Justice Thomas’ great-nephew, whom the justice took in to raise at the age of 6.
According to ProPublica, the tuition total could have cost more than $150,000. Justice Thomas did not disclose the payments in his financial disclosure forms, which would run afoul of the ethics standards for federal judges, though justices have not been held to that standard.
Scrutiny of the justices has continued in recent months.
The same news outlet reported in April that Justice Thomas did not disclose that he took multiple luxury vacations with Mr. Crow or that Mr. Crow purchased the home of Justice Thomas’ mother even though she continued to reside there.
The New York Times reported that Justice Thomas and other Republican appointees collected salaries to teach courses at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia School of Law.
Justice Thomas said he consulted with colleagues about disclosure requirements for the gifts from his friend Mr. Crow.
The high court doesn’t have a mandatory code of ethics, even though lower court judges are expected to avoid impropriety or do business with anyone who may come before the bench.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has said the high court has generally followed the Judicial Conferences’ Code of Ethics that are binding on lower courts — but not the Supreme Court — since 1991.
In July, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee advanced a bill requiring the high court to impose a code of ethics on itself. The legislation has not revived a vote on the Senate floor where it likely won’t get the 60 votes needed to survive.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.