The Tribune

With Charlie Harper

WHAT do Diane Feinstein, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, George Santos and Clarence Thomas have in common?

It’s true that Feinstein and Ginsburg are or were reliably liberal, influential women who made a large impact on American society. And that Ginsburg and Thomas are or were (Ginsburg died in 2020) Supreme Court justices. Santos and Feinstein are both well-known elected politicians from big states New York and California respectively.

But there’s one big thing they all have in common. None of them could or can recognise when it’s time to leave the big stage. And each is costing their sponsors and political allies significantly in the court of public opinion. They’re all stubborn. And none of them is capable of prioritising the responsibilities of public service over maintaining their own position. It’s a pretty self-centered attitude for a public servant to embrace.

Of course, these four are hardly unique in contemporary American political life. But while many share a stubborn grasp on their job, others move on.

Consider Iowa GOP Senator Chuck Grassley. He is 89 years old. In the Senate for 43 years, his seniority was his major selling point as he cruised to re-election last year. He is reported to have said this month that he is planning to run again in 2026 when he will be 95, “unless God intervenes”.

Grassley is only the second oldest serving US Senator. Feinstein is three months older than he is.

On the other hand, Vermont’s legendary Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy decided to leave the Senate last year at the age of 83, finishing up 48 years in the US upper house. Many felt he could have successfully sought re-election.

Feinstein has been in the news recently because she is an influential member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the body that nominates federal judges for Senate confirmation. After the success enjoyed by both Barack Obama and Donald Trump in appointing large numbers of federal judges who shared their social and political philosophies, Joe Biden arrived in the White House determined to emulate or exceed their record.

His plans are presently stalled by Feinstein’s lengthy absence from the Senate. She is suffering from shingles and, at 89, this is a serious health issue. She has been recuperating in California for over two months, far from Washington, DC, where her swing vote is needed to report out Biden judicial nominees for confirmation by the Senate.

Since the Dems only hold a one-vote edge on the Judiciary Committee, they no longer have the voting majority to move Biden’s nominees further along toward confirmation. Republicans, to no one’s surprise, blocked a Democratic attempt on Tuesday to temporarily replace her. Biden’s judges have remained in limbo in the Senate.

Then there was the sad case of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. An opera lover and author of many memorable left-leaning decisions and minority dissents for the court, Ginsburg became known as “Notorious RBG”, to her evident delight. She was a rock star, celebrated by liberals, women and girls and many “enlightened” men.

Obama tried unsuccessfully to persuade the celebrated justice to retire in 2013 so he could appoint her successor. No dice. She offered one public excuse after another for years, but clearly loved being a celebrity and remained in the court even as her pancreatic cancer and other ailments took their toll on her health.

Many observers thought Ginsburg was waiting for Hillary Clinton to beat Trump before retiring, because Clinton would nominate a more liberal successor for her than Obama, or so her successor could be nominated by the first female president. Perhaps, but it also became evident that she loved the limelight and didn’t want to give it up, any more than do Feinstein or Grassley.

After Trump’s shock victory in 2016 and the election of a Republican Senate, she would have had to wait until 2021 for a Democrat to be president, but she died in office in September 2020 at age 87. That permitted Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to confirm hard line social conservative Amy Comey Barrett to the high court, cementing a 6-3 conservative majority that proceeded in its first term to overturn Roe v Wade and open the legal door for severe restrictions to access to abortion for women in about half of the American states.

Part of that conservative high court majority is 74-year-old Clarence Thomas. This man has been very much in the headlines lately, particularly since a news web site revealed that he has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of luxury vacations, home renovations on his mom’s house, and other real estate-related benefits for many years.

The Supreme Court, scandalised and politicised especially during Trump’s presidency, is sullied as perhaps never before. And Thomas and his openly right-wing wife Ginni have been uncomfortably in the spotlight.

Thomas, who was confirmed by the US Senate in 1991 with Joe Biden serving as chair of the Judiciary Committee, revealed at that time a profound level of race-oriented resentment. He felt singled out and persecuted for the credence given to lurid allegations of sexual harassment made during his hearing by an attractive former subordinate, Anita Hill.

Thomas has ironically been a steadfast foe of the very voting rights, affirmative action and liberal doctrine that certainly facilitated his rise in the legal profession and nomination to the high court. The liberal knives have been sharpened and ready for Thomas for years.

Now mainstream and liberal media are saturating their pages and airwaves with the latest Thomas ethics scandal. Uniquely in the American legal system, the Supreme Court has basically no code of ethics. It does seem that Clarence Thomas sees himself as above the law and rules that applies to those less well positioned to evade it.

This black justice is now becoming a potential campaign issue for next year, both for his steadfast conservative views and for his apparent indifference to the revelations of his persistent indiscretions. He joins Feinstein and Ginsburg in stubbornly resisting calls to step down, and in the process damaging causes about which he clearly feels strongly.

As Leahy’s voluntary departure from the Senate stands in stark contrast to Feinstein’s tenacious resistance to leaving, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer modeled behaviour for Ginsburg, Thomas and others when he acceded to numerous public and private requests to step down in 2022 at the age of 82 and having served on the high court for 28 years. Breyer clearly didn’t want to leave, but did so in the interest of insulating the court from the disappointing, fetid, partisan atmosphere that presently dominates American politics.

Similarly, Justice Anthony Kennedy stepped aside in 2020 at the age of 84 after just 20 years on the high court. Political and ideological concerns doubtless motivated both Breyer and Kennedy, but they were able to see beyond their own circumstances and serve what they saw as a higher good.

There’s still no evidence Thomas will follow their lead.

The fourth member of our gallery of stubborn office holders is the genuinely notorious George Santos, a first-term Republican congressman from Long Island who campaigned and won election under cover of an astounding collection of lies and misrepresentations.

Disavowed by his local Republican Party and mocked mercilessly by the mainstream media, Santos nonetheless clings to his lucrative office. Like Grassley, he has already announced his intention to seek re-election next year. Santos is able to avoid House censure because the GOP has a slim majority and Speaker Kevin McCarthy needs every vote to retain his edge.

Santos is not headline and breaking news material so much these days. He was no doubt longing for a bit of relief from the relentless disdain of the centre and left media. Still, the man seemingly cannot help himself. Just when the furor around him and his stunning mendacity was ebbing, he dropped the news of his re-election intentions.

Maybe he believes Trump’s own dictum that in public life, no publicity is bad publicity. It’s fair to say that the jury in the court of public opinion is still out deliberating on whether that will work as well for Santos as is has for Trump.

But Trump had no respect for the office he held. And as we see, he is not alone in this regrettable disregard for American government.