Legal Scholars Are Shocked by Ginni Thomas’s “Stop the Steal” Texts
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
But I’m wary of holding him at all responsible for his spouse’s opinions.
I would not want to be held responsible for my spouses opinions.
Failing to recuse himself has really caused him a level of reputational damage that non-lifetime appointees would not survive.
Kind of a cosmic irony to me that after years of being the Supreme Court's most reliably banal, consistently aligned judge after a confirmation hearing where he was accused of sexual misdeeds, it's his long-suffering wife who might bring him down.
This criticism of my point is legitimate. Ginni Thomas is responsible for her communications with Meadows, but she is clearly not responsible for Clarence Thomas failing to recuse himself. That is indeed all on him.
"This January, Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter in a proceeding in which Trump asked the Court to stop the House investigative committee from obtaining records of his communications relating to efforts to subvert the 2020 election results."
This is one of those things that, had it not occurred in the aftermath of more than four of the most norm-crushing, aberrant years in the history of the western world, could have brought down even the most popular person.
(This sentence applies equally well to things that have happened here in the UK in the last few months, and in both cases the problem is the same -- a polarised system where one side has got used to constantly acting in performative bad faith.)
Ginni Thomas lobbied against the ACA: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/142969-dem...
That's a pretty distinct conflict of interest. It may not be illegal, or even against the rules, because the US Supreme Court is a unique body, but really? Seriously? Thomas should have recused himself on a lot of issues if his wife makes money lobbying one way or the other.
I have no idea how you get the impression I see no conflict.
The point is that even the appearance of the conflict ought to be enough to finish his career.
It doesn't make him literally responsible for her actions, of course, if that is the point you're making.
https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-only-justice...
There are plenty of other well-qualified judges without this particular problem, and it’s absurd that he won’t recuse himself from issues his wife actively campaigns for (though not surprising given his own dodgy history).
Justices are subject to a federal law that prohibits them from hearing cases in which their spouses have “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” The statute, 28 U.S.C. section 455, also requires them to disqualify themselves from any proceedings in which their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
How can you argue this isn't applicable?
> How can you argue this isn't applicable?
It really hinges on how exactly "interest" is defined, and if it's so broad to cover a desire to see/advocacy for certain political outcomes.
Should a liberal judge recuse themselves from all abortion cases because their spouse made a donation to Planned Parenthood or wrote letters to their representatives advocating against some anti-abortion law that may come before the court?
On the other hand, Mrs. Thomas was coordinating with POTUS's Chief of Staff Meadows in illegal activity (a coup attempt) that her husband may likely have to decide on later. Further, her activity has the appearance that she was funneling legal advice (or legal coordination) from her husband and to Meadows. These acts (of hers) call for her husband's recusal at a minimum, but SCOTUS justices conveniently aren't ethically accountable to anyone and so it is enforceable only by impeachment. However, impeachment of a judge won't require a 2/3's majority.
Planned Parenthood isn't just a charity, it's also a political organization advocating for certain controversial policies. Donating to it signals an interest in seeing its political goals achieved. My original draft had NARAL instead of Planned Parenthood, but I thought the latter would be more recognizable and make the point clearer.
Everyone probably has someone who is interested in the presidential election.
It's not about politics and it's not about the election in its ordinary course, is it?
It's about the specific interactions between her communications urging the overthrow of the election based on at the very least a bonkers premise, and his decision to vote against WH communications being turned over.
It's a reasonably narrow conflict of interest to infer.
Let’s not sugar coat this. She wasn’t taking a side on this or that issue where Justice Thomas might have to vote. She was trying to overthrow the government and he’s tasked with protecting it.
He either needs to get divorced or get off the Court. And he’s already ruled on a case where there’s direct conflict of interest between his spouse and country - and choose spouse.
Clearly the Jan 6 riot was not a peaceful petition, but was clearly a violent invasion.
And this kind of sentiment is why I'm highly skeptical of this controversy. It reeks of political maneuvering masquerading as more high-minded things.
This is not about politics, it's about a serious conflict of interest. Ginni Thomas actively pushed the executive branch to illegally overturn the presidential election, and Clarence Thomas had to rule on decisions that could expose that.
That's not politics, it's potential criminal exposure for one or both of them, depending on what she did.
In a neutral world, this would be easy grounds for removal.
There are only 9 lifetime positions on the Supreme Court, an institution dedicated to impartiality, fairness and justice. There's simply no room for this impropriety. Replace him with a conservative even! It's not about his judicial philosophy at all.
The Supreme Court needs every quiver in its pack to seem immune to modern day political realities. This is literally about as far from that as you can possibly get.
If Justice Thomas had texted this, perhaps there might be grounds for recusing him (but even then probably not - activist opinions are protected speech). Ginni's actions are of no consequence/relevance.