Thomas Criticized for 1990 Ruling
WASHINGTON — Clarence Thomas, President Bush’s nominee for the Supreme Court, may have violated judicial ethics in a 1990 ruling involving his political mentor, Sen. John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), a court watchdog group charged Sunday.
Thomas, a federal appeals court judge, wrote an opinion throwing out a $10.4-million fine against Ralston-Purina Co., the St. Louis-based pet food concern founded by Danforth’s grandfather, said Supreme Court Watch, a nonprofit group headquartered in New York.
Danforth owns at least $7.5 million in Ralston-Purina stock. His brothers, William and Donald, are on the firm’s board of directors and control roughly 5% of its shares, the group said in a report issued in Washington.
As Missouri attorney general, Danforth in 1974 hired Thomas right out of law school as an aide. When Danforth went to the Senate in 1979, he hired Thomas as his legislative assistant.
Because of their longstanding relationship, “common sense suggests that Judge Thomas should have disqualified himself from any case of significance to Danforth or his family, to avoid even the appearance of indebtedness,†the group’s report said.
Furthermore, it added, federal law requires that a judge disqualify himself from any case in which “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.â€
Danforth, in a statement issued by an aide, said he had no knowledge of the case.
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
