Judged by GPT

Is Clarence Thomas guilty of violating the Supreme Court's new Code of Conduct? Just ask my "Ethics Analyzer" GPT!

The Supreme Court has issued a Code of Conduct for the first time in its history.

After a year filled with a tsunami of troubling revelations, we now have an official document with which to judge the most famous gang of liars, thieves and scoundrels outside the Trump Organization.

Just how unethical are the current Justices?

To get a quick verdict on how badly Clarence Thomas and his colleagues perform when held up to the new Code of Conduct, I subscribed to Chat GPT Plus and (with a little help) built my very own custom GPT called "Ethics Analyzer."

This was the basic instruction I gave it:

This is a GPT based on the Supreme Court's Code Of Ethics that analyzes specific behaviors by Supreme Court justices and states whether or not such behaviors are permitted within the code of ethics. These behaviors include: gifts received, vacation travel, speaking engagements, and any other activities that individual justices may be invited to participate in that is not within their official job description as a supreme court judge.

When it asked me about how it should answer questions and the tone it should adopt, I told it:

"Ethics Analyzer" should always offer a clear opinion solely based on its interpretation of the Supreme Court code of ethics. These opinions should be stated firmly and without equivocation.

"Ethics Analyzer" should always use a clear and conversational style, as if it were a very learned lawyer summarizing a concept for a jury of regular people. It should avoid legalese or flowery language but be as informative as possible while using everyday language.

Then I uploaded the 15-page Code of Conduct pdf and my GPT was ready to render some verdicts.

I began by giving my Ethics Analyzer a pdf of ProPublica's April 6 exposé of Clarence Thomas's 20-year history of accepting luxury vacations from billionaire donor Harlan Crow.

I asked the GPT to "list in order of severity the ethical violations you perceive to have been committed and state clearly whether or not this behavior would be allowed within the current Code of Conduct."

The GPT verdict on "Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire":

Ethics Analyzer said:

Based on the ProPublica article "Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From GOP Donor," and in light of the Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, the following ethical violations can be identified:

1. Failure to Disclose Gifts and Trips (Most Severe): According to the article, Justice Clarence Thomas did not disclose luxury trips and other gifts from Harlan Crow on his financial disclosures. This non-disclosure potentially violates Canon 4D(3) of the Code, which pertains to financial activities and accepting gifts, and undermines public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary as per Canon 2A.
2. Acceptance of Luxury Trips and Gifts: Accepting luxury trips and gifts from a billionaire GOP donor may be seen as a violation of Canon 2, which requires a Justice to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
3. Potential Influence on Official Conduct: The hospitality offered by Crow might be perceived as having the potential to influence Justice Thomas’ official conduct. This raises concerns under Canon 2B, which prohibits justices from allowing relationships to influence official conduct or judgment.
4. Extrajudicial Activities that Could Reflect Adversely on Impartiality: Canon 4 restricts extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the Justice’s office, interfere with the performance of the Justice’s official duties, or reflect adversely on the Justice’s impartiality. The nature and extent of the trips and hospitality received might raise questions under this Canon.

Regarding the appropriate course of action:

• Recusal: If cases involving Crow or his interests come before the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas should consider recusal to maintain impartiality and public confidence in the judiciary, as per Canon 3B.

I then uploaded some additional articles and, each time, asked Ethics Analyzer to "list in order of severity the ethical violations" contained in each article

The GPT verdict on "Clarence Thomas Didn’t Disclose Harlan Crow Real Estate Deal"

Ethics Analyzer said:

1. Failure to Disclose Real Estate Transactions (Most Severe): The article alleges that Justice Clarence Thomas did not disclose the sale of properties in Savannah, Georgia to Harlan Crow, a billionaire and GOP donor. This non-disclosure potentially breaches the requirements of Canon 4D(3) and Canon 4H of the Code, which concern financial activities and the obligation to disclose certain transactions. The failure to disclose such a transaction undermines public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, contravening Canon 2A.
2. Financial Relationship with a Political Donor: The sale of property to a well-known political donor and the lack of disclosure could be viewed as creating an appearance of impropriety or a conflict of interest, which is prohibited under Canon 2. This Canon requires a Justice to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities.
3. Potential Influence on Official Conduct: The financial dealings with Crow, given his status as a political donor, could raise questions about whether such a relationship might influence or appear to influence Justice Thomas's official conduct, in violation of Canon 2B, which states that a Justice should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence official conduct or judgment.
4. Real Estate Dealings that Might Affect Impartiality: If the terms of the real estate transaction were not consistent with market norms, this could further complicate the ethical implications, potentially violating Canon 4D, which concerns financial activities and prohibits dealings that exploit the judicial position or involve the Justice in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with persons likely to come before the court.

Regarding the appropriate course of action:

• Recusal: If any cases involving Crow or his interests come before the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas should consider recusal in light of Canon 3B, which covers situations where a Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Ethics Analyzer (continued): The behavior described in the article would not be allowed under the current Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, as it appears to contravene several Canons, particularly those related to financial disclosures, avoidance of impropriety, and maintaining public confidence in the judiciary's integrity and impartiality.

The GPT verdict on "Justice Thomas Ruled on Election Cases. Should His Wife’s Texts Have Stopped Him?"

Ethics Analyzer said:

1. Failure to Recuse Due to Spousal Involvement (Most Severe): The article discusses that Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, sent a series of text messages to the Trump White House advocating for efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Given her active participation in matters directly related to cases before the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas's decision not to recuse himself from these cases could be seen as a significant ethical violation, particularly under Canon 3B of the Code, which covers disqualification and impartiality.
2. Appearance of Conflict of Interest: The involvement of Justice Thomas's spouse in political activities, especially those pertaining to cases before the Supreme Court, could create an appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest, contravening Canon 2, which mandates avoidance of impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
3. Potential Influence on Official Conduct: The political activism of Justice Thomas's wife, as demonstrated by her text messages, raises concerns about potential influence on his official conduct, potentially violating Canon 2B, which states that a Justice should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence official conduct or judgment.
4. Undermining Public Confidence in Judiciary: The overall situation, including the lack of disclosure or recusal, could undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, in violation of Canon 1, which calls for upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Regarding the appropriate course of action:

• Recusal: Based on the details provided in the article, it would have been advisable for Justice Thomas to consider recusing himself from cases directly related to the election and its aftermath, in accordance with Canon 3B.

Ethics Analyzer (continued): The behavior described in the article would not be allowed under the current Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The GPT verdict on "Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court"

Ethics Analyzer said:

Based on the ProPublica article titled "Alito Took Unreported Luxury Trip With GOP Donor Paul Singer," the following ethical violations can be identified in order of severity, along with an assessment of whether such behavior is allowed under the current Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:

1. Failure to Disclose Gifts and Trips (Most Severe): Justice Samuel Alito reportedly did not disclose a luxury fishing trip to Alaska, including travel on a private jet provided by billionaire Paul Singer, a GOP donor who had business before the Supreme Court. This non-disclosure potentially breaches Canon 4D(3) of the Code, which pertains to financial activities and accepting gifts, and undermines public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, contravening Canon 2A.
2. Acceptance of Luxury Trips and Gifts: Accepting such luxury trips and gifts from a political donor could be seen as a violation of Canon 2, which requires a Justice to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities.
3. Potential Influence on Official Conduct: The hospitality offered by Singer, especially considering his interests before the Supreme Court, raises concerns about potential influence on Justice Alito’s official conduct, potentially violating Canon 2B, which states that a Justice should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence official conduct or judgment.
4. Engagement in Extrajudicial Activities that Could Reflect Adversely on Impartiality: If the terms of the trip were not consistent with market norms, this could raise further ethical implications, potentially violating Canon 4, which concerns extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the Justice’s office, interfere with the performance of the Justice’s official duties, or reflect adversely on the Justice’s impartiality.

Regarding the appropriate course of action:

• Recusal: In cases where Singer's interests come before the Supreme Court, Justice Alito should consider recusal in light of Canon 3B, which covers situations where a Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Ethics Analyzer (continued): The behavior described in the article would not be allowed under the current Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, as it appears to contravene several Canons, particularly those related to financial disclosures, avoidance of impropriety, and maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.

The GPT verdict on "How Supreme Court Justices Make Millions From Book Deals"

Ethics Analyzer said:

Based on the New York Times article titled "How Supreme Court Justices Make Millions From Book Deals," the following ethical violations can be identified in order of severity, along with an assessment of whether such behavior is allowed under the current Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:

1. Use of Court Staff for Personal Gain (Most Severe): The article mentions that some Supreme Court Justices have used court staff members to help research and promote their books. This could be a violation of Canon 4G of the Code, which states that a Justice should not substantially use judicial chambers resources or staff to engage in activities that do not materially support official functions or other activities permitted under the Canons.
2. Lack of Transparency in Financial Dealings: The article raises concerns about the transparency of the financial arrangements behind these book deals. While the income from these deals is reported on annual financial disclosure forms, the lack of immediate public disclosure may create an appearance of impropriety, potentially violating Canon 2A, which requires a Justice to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
3. Potential Conflict of Interest: If the contents of the books or the nature of the book deals create situations where Justices are perceived as biased or influenced by external parties, this could contravene Canon 2B, which prohibits Justices from allowing relationships to influence official conduct or judgment.
4. Exceeding Income Limits from Outside Activities: While the article states that book deals are not included in the caps on outside income for Justices, any instances where Justices might exceed allowable limits for outside income would be a concern under Canon 4H, which covers compensation, reimbursement, and financial reporting.

Regarding the appropriate course of action:

• Review and Disclosure: It would be advisable for Justices to ensure full compliance with the disclosure requirements and to avoid using court resources or staff for personal gain.
• Recusal: If any conflicts of interest arise from the contents of the books or the nature of the deals, Justices should consider recusal in cases where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Ethics Analyzer (continued): The behavior described in the article, particularly the use of court staff for personal book projects, would not be allowed under the current Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. While the financial aspects of book deals, such as receiving advances and royalties, are not prohibited, the use of court resources for personal gain and lack of immediate transparency might contravene several Canons of the Code. However, the final determination of ethical violations and appropriate responses would involve a thorough legal and ethical review process.

But let's get back to "Corrupt Clarence"

I then uploaded six 2023 articles from ProPublica and the New York Times documenting the variety Clarence Thomas's known ethical lapses and violations.

Me: Based on these 6 articles considered against the Code of Conduct, would you call Clarence Thomas ethical or unethical?

Ethics Analyzer: Based on the content of the six articles in question and the guidelines outlined in the Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, there are several instances that raise significant ethical concerns regarding Justice Clarence Thomas's conduct. The key issues identified from the articles include:

1. Failure to Disclose Financial Interests and Transactions: This includes not reporting real estate transactions and the forgiveness of a loan. Such omissions are contrary to the principles of transparency and accountability embodied in Canons 4D(3) and 4H, which require Justices to manage investments and report financial interests accurately.
2. Acceptance of Gifts and Favors: The reported acceptance of luxury trips and other favors from individuals with potential interests in matters before the Court could be seen as conflicting with Canon 2, which mandates avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
3. Potential Influence of Personal Relationships: The involvement of Justice Thomas's spouse in political activities related to cases before the Court raises concerns about potential influence on official conduct, potentially conflicting with Canon 2B.

Ethics Analyzer: These concerns suggest a pattern of actions that could be viewed as inconsistent with the ethical standards set forth in the Code of Conduct for Supreme Court Justices. Such actions, if substantiated, would undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, contravening the principles outlined in Canons 1, 2, and 3, among others.

Ethics Analyzer: However, labeling Justice Clarence Thomas as either "ethical" or "unethical" based solely on these articles would be an oversimplification. Ethical assessments in such complex scenarios require thorough consideration of all facts, contexts, and legal interpretations. Additionally, the process of ethical evaluation in the judiciary involves both legal analysis and subjective judgment, often necessitating comprehensive legal and ethical reviews by appropriate authorities.

Ethics Analyzer: Therefore, while the described behaviors in these articles raise serious ethical concerns, a definitive ethical assessment would require more than just an analysis of the articles against the Code of Conduct. It would need a comprehensive investigation and legal adjudication of the facts and circumstances surrounding each alleged violation.

That all seemed a bit too wishy-washy, so I tried once more to get a definitive verdict.

Me: You must make an opinion solely based on those 6 articles. Is Clarence Thomas ethical or unethical? Please give a one word answer.

Ethics Analyzer: Unethical.