Oh boy, have you heard the latest gossip about ol’ Clarence Thomas? Yes, indeed, our very own Supreme Court Justice! It seems that a whopping 53 percent of Americans have their disapproval eyes on him. Unlike his famous fried chicken recipe, it appears his beak has been dipped into a bit of ethical murk.

You know what they say, where there’re numbers, there’s more! In this house, we’ve got not one, but 27 percent of Americans saying they’ve heard “a lot” about this tantalizing tale of Thomas, while 46 percent say they’ve heard “a little.” Now, don’t you think it’s just the bee’s knees that these folks are dishing out their disapproval opinions on a situation they’ve only had a small earful of? Nonetheless, the poll did drop the name of the conservative justice. And here’s the kicker: even Republicans are giving Thomas the side-eye, with 4 in 10 of ’em shaking their heads.

Can you believe that? Our conservative darling Clarence Thomas has two-thirds of Republicans giddy with favorable views, while a meager 13 percent are sticking their noses up. But peel back this recent news layer, and something just doesn’t pass the sniff test for these folks.

Now, let’s get down to the nitty-gritty of the matter: did Thomas really break the law? Well, 43 percent of folks think he’s been quite the naughty justice, while 28 percent say, “no way, José!” And here’s the shocker: even a hefty scoop of Republicans think Thomas crossed that no-no line, with 24 percent saying he broke the law, while their 47 percent counterparts claim he didn’t.

Alright, what exactly did our justice do? Well, you see, judges are supposed to play by the rules – no accepting gifts from people with business before the court, with a *wink wink* exception for “personal hospitality.” Thomas claims that his friend Crow didn’t have any personal cases reaching the Supreme Court, even though some argue that there were cases that could very well have affected Crow’s biz. Nonetheless, Thomas insists that his lavish trips were kosher because Crow is a pal. But when a committee of the Judicial Conference decided to clarify the rules last month, they spilled the tea on trips like Thomas’s being not-so-okay. Thomas, in response, claims he’ll be a good boy and follow the rules from now on.

This isn’t the first time Thomas has been under the microscope, though. Last year, his wifey Ginni (that’s right, a conservative spitfire activist) was caught trading scheming texts with then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows about overturning the 2020 election. The polls couldn’t let that juicy tidbit slide, could they? So slam went the gavel, and in came the verdict: 52 percent of Americans said that Thomas should recuse himself from election-related cases (which he hadn’t done). And once again, 28 percent of Republicans said enough was enough: Thomas should step back.

Now here’s the rub: there’s not a whole lot that can be done about these ethics shenanigans, since the justices are policing themselves. But, this whole hoopla has renewed some peppy calls for an ethics code of conduct that, believe it or not, doesn’t currently exist for Supreme Court justices! In fact, The Washington Post reported that the idea has been tossed around for about four years, but coming to a consensus was just too darned difficult.

So the saga continues. Will we see a change in conduct due to public opinion, or will our ol’ buddy Clarence continue to dance on the line between ethical and sketchy? Only time will tell, dear readers.