And it’s worth noting right here that the Supreme Court has been one of the largest players in changing the definition of what corruption is, demanding that we talk in terms of quid quo pro corruption, which is a really narrow definition. That’s the Supreme Court’s doctrine in recent decades.
But I think under your question there is this question of how is it possible that Clarence Thomas is ruling on the loan forgiveness case, that Harlan Crow’s wife has a — gives to an organization, the Manhattan Institute, that has an amicus brief in that case, and that, as you say, the argument seems to be “personal charity for me, so my grandnephew can go to a fancy private school, but not for thee, all of you who need debt relief.” So, this is really like a layer cake of misconduct. And at every single layer of the cake, it is astonishing that Justice Clarence Thomas, who clearly has vested interests in every level, does not recuse.
-- Dahlia Lithwick, "Can Anyone Hold Justice Clarence Thomas to Account for Secret Dealings with Billionaire GOP Megadonor?" (DEMOCRACY NOW!).
