Below is my column on the calls for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a wide range of cases. I have previously discussed the meritless calls for his impeachment over the controversy related to his wife’s emails to the White House after the 2020 election. There are legitimate concerns that Thomas should have recused himself from a January case if he knew that his wife’s messages were included in the material sought by the House investigation. However, experts have gone further to claim that he must recuse himself from a wide array of other cases, including any touching on the 2020 election. I do not agree with that assessment. In the meantime, Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.) is calling for an “investigation” into Thomas’ refusal to recuse himself, though he is vague on who would conduct such an investigation.
Here is the column:
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas may have been released from the hospital this week with a clean bill of health, but he was immediately met by a chorus of pundits and professors in a media frenzy calling for Thomas’s recusal from an array of cases. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) even called for Thomas to be impeached; others, like MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan, echoed that call.
The reason? Thomas’s wife, Ginni, and her communications with White House staff before the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill.
Earlier this year, the House’s Jan. 6 committee won an 8-1 victory before the Supreme Court, which rejected Trump’s privilege objections to the release of White House materials. The sole dissenting vote was cast by Thomas.
Soon after receiving the disputed emails and texts, the predictable leaks began from Congress, including 29 email and text messages from Ginni Thomas encouraging Trump’s then-White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to fight what she saw as a stolen election. Most of these messages preceded Jan. 6 and voiced such views as her Nov. 19, 2020, message to Meadows: “Sounds like [Trump attorney] Sidney [Powell] and her team are getting inundated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down.”
The leaks had their intended effect. The media exploded with strikingly similar headlines, like Salon’s “‘Extraordinary level of corruption’: Legal experts shocked by Ginni Thomas’ QAnon texts” and the New Yorker’s “Legal Scholars Are Shocked By Ginni Thomas’s ‘Stop the Steal’ Texts.” The airwaves again are filled with shocked experts doing their best Claude Rains interpretation for cable audiences.
As with many controversies, however, this story calls for a bit less shock and a bit more scrutiny.
Ginni Thomas is a prominent Republican activist. She has publicly stated that she and her husband keep their professional lives separate, as do many Washington couples.
When Ginni Thomas sent these messages, many Republicans believed the 2020 presidential election was stolen. (Indeed, only 21 percent of Republicans still believe Joe Biden was legitimately elected as president.) She and others were pushing for legal and political action to expose what they saw as voting fraud. I did not share that view and stated in 2020 that there was no evidence in these cases showing systemic fraud.
Democrats in prior — and later — years also have challenged election results and opposed the certification of presidential elections in Congress, and leading Democrats continue to call Trump an illegitimate president. What they did not do, of course, is riot in the halls of Congress — but neither did Ginni Thomas.
Thomas has insisted that she attended Trump’s Ellipse rally on Jan. 6 but left early, before Trump spoke, and never went to the Capitol. Still, her messages were within the broad scope of discovery sought by Congress and thus covered in the earlier case.
There is a legitimate concern over Justice Thomas voting on the case, given the interests of his wife. Thomas’s position on the case was consistent with his long-held robust views of executive privilege and powers; however, that would not negate his voting on a case with a conflict of interest.
Yet, there are countervailing factors, too.
First, Ginni Thomas was publicly supporting Trump in his election and post-election claims; the messages echo her publicly-stated views. Second, Congress was already receiving testimony and statements from figures like Meadows. Even if it did not secure these emails from the White House, it could independently seek Ginni Thomas’s messages, since she is not protected by executive privilege. Thus, a Court injunction would not have necessarily barred such disclosure.
Third, and most notably, the messages were already disclosed. That fact is buried in the New Yorker article, which noted that when the Court was considering the issue, “Meadows had already turned over to the congressional committee some 2,300 texts — and … they included the 29-message exchange between him and Ginni Thomas.”
None of that means that a recusal was not warranted. If Thomas knew of his wife’s messages, recusal could have avoided the “appearance” of a conflict, even if all of the emails were previously disclosed. That is the standard governing recusal questions for lower court judges, although the justices — wrongly, in my view — maintain they are not controlled by the Code of Judicial Ethics.
It would not be enough to justify only the second impeachment of a justice in history, or to compel Thomas’s recusal from any further election- or Trump-related cases. The New Yorker cited “shocked” experts saying that Thomas must now recuse himself from a wide range of cases because “his wife … colluded extensively with a top White House adviser about overturning Joe Biden’s victory.” The “collusion” and “scheming” cited in the article was to advocate — just as many others did publicly — for legal and legislative challenges.
One of those experts was NYU professor Stephen Gillers, who declared: “I was prepared to, and did tolerate a great deal of Ginni’s political activism. Ginni has now crossed a line. Clarence Thomas cannot sit on any matter involving the election, the invasion of the Capitol, or the work of the January 6 Committee.”
Conversely, Gillers recently said there was no need for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to recuse herself from a Supreme Court case involving Harvard’s use of race for admissions, if she is confirmed as a justice. Thus, Jackson could sit on a case involving Harvard after serving (and continuing to serve in 2022) as a Harvard board member. Yet, according to Gillers, Thomas should recuse himself from any election-related case because his wife advocated for challenges to the election. (Judge Jackson, correctly in my view, decided recently that she would recuse herself from the Harvard case.)
Much of the ethical analysis seems driven by the characterization of these messages as “collusion” in “overthrowing an election” rather than political advocacy. For example, University of California/Irvine professor Richard Hasen concluded that, “given Ginni Thomas’s deep involvement in trying to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election based upon outlandish claims of voter fraud, and her work on this with not only activists but the former president’s chief of staff,” a sweeping recusal is necessary since “his spouse’s reputation, and even potential liability, is at stake.”
What liability? Ginni Thomas insists she was not trying to “subvert the outcome of the 2020 election” but, instead, to challenge what she viewed as a rigged election. She was wrong, in my view, but that is not a crime — it is protected speech. There is no evidence she advocated or participated in violence on that day, which is the purported focus of the committee. Her “interest” was the same as that of many Republicans who considered the election stolen.
Absent new damning evidence, these messages show constitutionally protected advocacy.
Even if Justice Thomas had decided to recuse himself from the earlier decision, there is no reason for him to recuse from any election-related or committee-related cases based solely on these messages from his wife.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
It does sound like a good chunk of the Republican Party lives in a fact free QAnon fantasy world and many want to excuse anything they do as if everything the QAnon people think is real.
It is like saying the Russians are excused from invading Ukraine because they believe what Putin says about Ukraine even though it is untrue.
Sure, if an election was being stolen like it was in Belarus a year or two ago it might excuse storming the Capitol, etc. But there is no truth to it.
A SCOTUS Justice and his wife should not be excused for abhorrent behavior because they genuinely believe something which is 100 percent false or because a lot of other Republicans live in the same cultish fantasy world.
You can’t excuse Trump for either of his impeachments because he genuinely believed what the people around him kept telling him after he fired all the people around him who did not tell him what he wanted to hear.
It is not our f****** fault you didn’t raise your children with anything resembling a principle or an ideal, which you seem to lack yourself, and in their incapacity, they are turning your country into a flaming dumpster. You seem to lack basic, human decency, and there is no way to fix that externally from the outside with someone of your years. You will reap the sorrow as much as anyone, you will hate it, and you will bemoan, and you don’t get to blame people that tried to do the right thing. I can only think that you are so privileged that nothing affects you in a meaningful way. The *real* trials and tribulations of other people are simply an idea to you. This is a legal blog, not a feelings blog, and thank heaven the law still stands in some form. Thatis quite literally at this point, all that will ave us. Just remind yourself that the Dems have control of all three branches of government, have for long enough to prove themselves at this point, and we are in the worst shape we have been in for 40 years. Again, in a privileged bubble, you might not notice.
Buts a good name for you, but you left out a T
LOL
Butt,
2020 called and they want their conspiracy theories back.
“federal law (28 U.S. 455) requires judges to recuse from cases where ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’” Shall we apply this standard to the potential Justice Jackson? We already know that she is an advocate for many leftist causes yet she remains untouchable. To solve this conundrum I propose that Justice Thomas identify himself as a black woman, thereby nullifying the reason for selecting such an unfit person for nomination to our highest court.
It IS being applied to KBJ. That’s why she was asked if she’d recuse from the Harvard case. She said that if confirmed, she would recuse.
One could ask her to recuse herself from a whole host of other cases similar to your request of Thomas. You will selectively ask Thomas to recuse but not KBJ. You are an unthinking ideologue.
I am not referring to her Harvard connections, that is palpably apparent, what I am concerned with is her tacit but ardent adherence to extremist ideological views that are in opposition to our constitution and her specific selection for nomination in respect to those ardently held views. She was selected because of her advocacy to those antithetical views.
The issue of Thomas’s recusal from J6 cases involves the facts of his wife’s text messages. The issue of KBJ’s recusal from the Harvard case involves the fact of her having served on the Board of Overseers.
You’re attempting to move the goalposts from facts like the above to your personal opinion about KBJ’s views. Not analogous.
Justice Thomas clearly does not identify as a black man although he looks like one. That is why he was selected as a Justice.
You sound racist.
Anon,
Agreed, Bush sounds undoubtedly racist. He is clearly a leftist.
“federal law (28 U.S. 455) requires judges to recuse from cases where ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’”
That federal law does not cover, The Supreme Court of the United States. Never has it been considered by a single prosecutor.
There is but a single Federal court created by the Constitution. All other Federal courts are created by Congress.
Alma,
I like the way that you think. I am sure that President H.W. Bush (41) would gladly accept the posthumous honor of being the one to have nominated the first black woman to the Supreme Court.
I like the way you think Ray, you want the Thomases to be in a same-sex marriage even though Clarence dissented in Obergefell.
Turley finally concedes that Justice Thomas should recuse himself. But at the end he takes that back. Turley cannot bear to say anything bad about the Justice. Here’s Turley’s first statement about it in this piece.
“None of that means that a recusal was not warranted. If Thomas knew of his wife’s messages, recusal could have avoided the “appearance” of a conflict, even if all of the emails were previously disclosed. That is the standard governing recusal questions for lower court judges, although the justices — wrongly, in my view — maintain they are not controlled by the Code of Judicial Ethics.”
JT also misleads by noting that “the “appearance” of a conflict … is the standard governing recusal questions for lower court judges, although the justices — wrongly, in my view — maintain they are not controlled by the Code of Judicial Ethics,” while ignoring that there is a different law, 28 U.S. Code § 455, that explicitly applies to both justices and judges:
Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. …
No justice has ever challenged this law as unconstitutional. My guess is that in upcoming J6 cases, some of the parties will be asking Justice Thomas to recuse, citing this law.
Turley is a law professor, and he has previously acknowledged that “federal law (28 U.S. 455) requires judges to recuse from cases where ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’”
Yet he doesn’t focus on that law in this column where he is writing about recusal. An odd choice for a law professor if he’s trying to present an informative legal discussion. Perhaps he doesn’t want it to be informative, only to feed the rage he often complains about.
28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: … (5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: … (iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; …
Thomas should disqualify himself from cases involving Jan. 6 because of his wife’s exchanges with Trump’s Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, about efforts to prevent Biden from taking office after winning the 2020 election, including recommending Trump use Sidney Powell. Thomas’s impartiality can reasonably be questioned, especially after he refused to recuse from a case involving Trump WH records about this topic, when we do not know whether those records included additional communications from his wife.
And lest iowan2 yet again falsely claim that Congress cannot pass any laws that apply to Justices, he is wrong. The Constitution says “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour,” and Congress can pass legislation about that behavior. For example, the Ethics in Government Act applies to SCOTUS Justices (among others — it also applies to the President, the VP, lower court judges, and some others), and all of the Justices abide by that Act, for example, by filing the required financial disclosure forms. This is part of our system of checks and balances. Just as SCOTUS can rule on the constitutionality of legislation passed by Congress, Congress can pass legislation that applies to the behavior of SCOTUS Justices. SCOTUS can strike that legislation down if they find it to be unconstitutional. The fact that not a single SCOTUS Justice has ever sought to challenge 28 U.S. Code § 455 suggests that they do not believe it to be unconstitutional.
“Yet he doesn’t focus ”
ATS, pump some of the stuff out of your head. It is about to explode. Has it grown so big that you believe you should be Turley’s mento? Don’t make us laugh so hard..
Are we supposed to believe the 8 other justices on the court have spouses/significant others that don’t have opinions? Should Christian judges recuse themselves from cases involving 1st amendment rights of atheists? Should married, heterosexual judges recuse themselves from cases involving same-sex marriage? There’s a reason judicial philosophy and written opinions are of concern during confirmation hearings. It’s because once on the court, their philosophy will guide their opinions. These 9 justices are going to hear arguments that defy their personal opinions and that of their spouses, their extended families and close personal friends. In every case they are expected to set aside all of that and make decisions that are consistent with their interpretation of the law. My understanding of the confirmation process is it is intended to weed out nominees who’s record reflects judicial activism vis a vie constitutional limits. Given his track record, it’s Roberts who should be impeached for legislating from the bench, or at the very least be automatically recused from every case that he cannot prove he doesn’t have a conflict of interest.
This isn’t about “having opinions.” This is about Ginni Thomas exchanging multiple text messages with Trump’s Chief of Staff about ways to prevent Biden from taking office after having been elected. As JT noted, “her messages were within the broad scope of discovery sought by Congress and thus covered in the earlier case.” For all we know, there were additional messages between Ginni Thomas and people in the WH that were turned over after Trump lost that case.
Turley argued that if confirmed, KBJ should recuse from the Harvard case. KBJ said she would.
Turley should also be arguing that Justice Thomas should recuse from cases about the effort to prevent Biden from taking office, as Justice Thomas’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” given his wife’s communications and his own choice not to recuse from the earlier case. But Turley knows that would tick off a lot of his Trumpist followers, so he doesn’t.
“her messages were within the broad scope of discovery sought by Congress ”
But we still haven’t seen Pelosi’s communications on the more proximate scope of discovery.
Turley should also be arguing that Justice Thomas should recuse from cases about the effort to prevent Biden from taking office, as Justice Thomas’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” given his wife’s communications and his own choice not to recuse from the earlier case.
To borrower the sentiment from Vinny Gambini: He’s a conservative associate justice on the United States Supreme Court, there’s no way his impartiality isn’t going to be questioned every time he puts on his robe.
“ What liability? Ginni Thomas insists she was not trying to “subvert the outcome of the 2020 election” but, instead, to challenge what she viewed as a rigged election. She was wrong, in my view, but that is not a crime — it is protected speech. There is no evidence she advocated or participated in violence on that day, which is the purported focus of the committee. Her “interest” was the same as that of many Republicans who considered the election stolen.”
She didn’t advocate violence, but she certainly advocated for the subversion of a legitimate government function. She inserted herself into the attempt to force Mike pence into breaking the law. She demanded Meadows take action. A “challenge” is a cute euphemism Turley uses for subversion.
subversion: Another word would have been a better choice. In this context the use of the word is obsolete.
The Left impugns a husband for his wife’s texts. But not a father for his son’s emails.
I think there’s a pattern here.
If Biden were a Justice, I’d also be calling on him to recuse from cases involving his son. I am not “impugning” Justice Thomas by arguing that he should recuse from J6 cases, just as Turley was not impugning Judge Jackson by arguing that she should recuse from the Harvard case. We are simply asking judges and justices to recuse, consistent with 28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
“f Biden were a Justice, I’d also be calling on him to recuse from cases involving his son.”
But ATS won’t admit to the fact that if he weren’t the President’s son (Biden’s son), he would likely face indictment.
Anonymous,
“ But ATS won’t admit to the fact that if he weren’t the President’s son (Biden’s son), he would likely face indictment.”
Indictment for what exactly?
Svelaz,
How about tax evasion, money laundering, and my favorite, FARA violations? It is a clear conflict of interest for Biden’s justice department to handle this case, a Special Prosecutor is clearly called for.
Svelaz, if you are asking such a question, then you don’t belong on a blog where intelligence is needed. You have proven that over and over again. I will provide the same answer to your later comment.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ Svelaz, if you are asking such a question, then you don’t belong on a blog where intelligence is needed. You have proven that over and over again. I will provide the same answer to your later comment.”
Obviously your intelligence is avoiding a very simple question because you have no criminal violations that would lead to a conviction. Remember Hunter Biden is innocent until proven guilty.
Hunter Biden is innocent until proven guilty as is his father, Joe Biden and the uncles. However, Hunter has the President protecting him. Anyone else would have been charged and likely accepted a plea bargain to keep the number of years in prison down. Hunter has provided the evidence with pictures.
If one wants to look at pornography all one has to do is look at the pictures of the President’s sone. If one wants to see criminality of the President, all one has to do is look at the emails in the laptop.
“ Even if it did not secure these emails from the White House, it could independently seek Ginni Thomas’s messages, since she is not protected by executive privilege. ”
How would the committee even know that Ginny Thomas was sending such texts? The only reason we know is because Meadows was cooperating with the committee until he abruptly decided to stop.
Looks like they will now if the committee decides to subpoena her phone records.
The committee is doing a political hit job. When they subpoena Pelosi’s discussions, I will believe the committee is actually looking into something meaningful.
S. Meyer, why would they need to look into Pelosi’s discussions? She wasn’t the one inciting and supporting the crowd rioting in the Capitol.
S. Meyer, why would they need to look into Pelosi’s discussions? She wasn’t the one inciting and supporting the crowd rioting in the Capitol.
Now you’ve stepped in it.
What is constitutional predicate for the Jan 6 commission. We know Congress has no power to conduct criminal investigations. Your post indicates they are in fact looking into the criminal act of protesting in the Halls of Congress. Something they have no constitutional power to look into.
Only investigations to better inform them in their power to write legislation. Gina Thomas would have nothing Congress could learn from her actions, ie, lawmaking.
Iowan2,
Agreed, Ginni Thomas’s text have nothing to offer that would allow the HoR to gain insight into legislation that could prevent this from happening again.
However, common sense would dictate that we definitely (!) need to understand the failure to connect the dots between various LE and intelligence agencies that clearly knew that something was afoot and the powers-that-be who were in charge of Capital security and were woefully unprepared for the events of J6.
In addition, it would be good to understand the disparity between the response of the Capital Police who, on the one hand, fired rubber bullets, pepper balls, and flash bangs against the crowd at one entrance to the capital but, one the other hand, apparently opened the doors and welcomed protesters into the Capital rotunda?
It is not clear to me at all what legislative purpose is served by the current course of the J6 Commission.
Ray, you are on target.
“ It is not clear to me at all what legislative purpose is served by the current course of the J6 Commission.”
Steal the elections yet again. What else do Democrats have to offer, other than removing US Presidents, Russian leaders and targeting parents as terrorists
Iowan2,
“ We know Congress has no power to conduct criminal investigations.”
Congress does indeed have the power to conduct criminal investigations. What it can’t do is bring criminal charges. That is where the DOJ comes in.
They do have constitutional power to look into the criminal acts. Congress has the authority to conduct investigations “in aid of its legislative function.” That authority can extend to investigations for the purpose of deciding whether legislation is appropriate, to information gathering on matters of national importance, to oversight of federal departments and executive agencies. As a result, a congressional committee has broad discretion regarding both the scope of its investigation and the relevance of the information it requests.
Just as republicans in congress can conduct criminal investigations on Hunter Biden if they get control of congress. They will be investigating potential criminal acts. Just as the Jan 6 committee is doing now.
Svelaz, if you are asking such a question, then you don’t belong on a blog where intelligence is needed. You have proven that over and over again. I will provide the same answer to your earlier comment.
“[W]hy would they need to look into Pelosi’s discussions?”
You already know the answer to that. But here it is, again:
Because she refused to authorize the deployment of the National Guard on Jan. 6. And now she is covering up her decision.
If the some 10,000 NG troops had been deployed, there would not have been a Jan. 6.
It is a badly kept secret that right wing groups funnel bribes to Thomas though Ginny. Now he is voting on matters that affect him personally. Of course there should be an investigation.
ATS needs Sammy to make blatant lies that even he finds ridiculous. I am surprised he didn’t use one of his pretend friends instead.
You are the one and only ATS. You are so stupid that you confuse anonymous commenters with Sammy, with Svelaz, with Bug, and others.
ATS, you wish to believe that I was wrong primarily in the confusion of the myriad of anonymous or new postings. That is BS, especially since on the three you pointed out over this very long timespan, on one, you were wrong, and on the other two, I freely admitted my mistake.
My record is pretty good since we can see both half to one-quarter of the postings as anonymous postings, with many first-time names. You hate being exposed. We even see that Sammy’s icon had two other names attached to it. You can always choose a name and discontinue the use of the generic anonymous. You won’t do that because then you couldn’t blame others for your Stupidity.
You are the one and only ATS.
You can say what you want, but you are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid or ATS for short. Others have given you other names like The MORON, but all of the rest tell the same story.
SM
No, you are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid.
We can tell you are Anonymous the Stupid because you can’t do anything but repeat yourself.
SM
We can tell you are Anonymous the Stupid because your anonymous comments are so stupid, dishonest, and insulting.
“We can tell you are Anonymous the Stupid because your anonymous comments are so stupid, dishonest, and insulting.”
Yes, that is who you are.
SM
S.Meyers,
It is hilarious that Anomaly does not understand that he just ‘outed’ Dirt McGirt and YNOT as being his sock-puppet accounts. What a maroon.
As well as decrying people use his other sock puppet accounts like Svelaz, Seth Warner, etc etc etc cuz Act Blue trolls make their earnings by the keystroke
Maybe you’re a sock of S Meyer. He’s posted under other names.
I post under one name, two initials, SM and use anonymous mostly for three people. ATS, you are one of those three. You post garbage and I don’t want to add to it, so I post anonymously for people to discard all anonymous postings. Recently I posted to you with my initials because you were so confused.
SM
Oh come now – that is completely ridiculous
Turley is more of a red coat than a blue one to be honest. To not question a fabricated process for votes is to not contain virtue this country was founded on. Even if it was legitimate, we have foreign forces and anarchists constantly targeting these systems. To verify it’s integrity is our duty in this new generation of warfare.
A man loves a woman. He can not control her mind. He can not shut her up. He must go on with his own thoughts. But not be ruled by wifeypoo.
Calls for this and that mean nothing just the usual socialist fascist PCRap from the likes of Piglosillyni and Schmuckly Putz. Since they are in constant difficulty with their violations of the their oath of office I see no reason for them and others working for them RINOs and DINOs to be given NO MORE THAN WHAT THEY DESERVE. Charges for violation of the Constitution, rejection and ejection themselves.
I would go further and eject them from the our Constitutional Republic but it isn’t Constitutional. The what? That document the far left never reads and constantly violates.
As a constitutional centrist I’m convinced the party system has failed and since it isn’t noted in the Constitution can be rejected and replaced.
Aarethun Constitutional Centrist Coalition to put the CITIZENS back in charge and boot out the socialist fascists by whatever phony name they are using.
The racists on the left hate the fact that the Black Supreme Court Justice Thomas is a conservative. Therefore, they attempt to remove him from the bench. They tried to prevent him from getting on the bench with ”a high tech lynching” but failed. The left didn’t have the acumen to defeat him. Ted Kennedy didn’t even have the smarts to keep his zipper closed.
S. Meyer, this has nothing to do with racism. His wife’s political activism went over the line by demanding Meadows push for subverting the U.S. government. Even Turley agrees Thomas should recuse from such cases. The messages Ginny Thomas sent may not be all of them there might be more that would force justice Thomas to recuse himself from such cases.
Ginny Thomas is already likely involved with Eastman who pursued the legal theory that the election could be overturned and stated he knew two justices who would agree with his strategy. Thomas obviously is one of them.
Turley’s tiptoeing around this issue like a scared cat is telling. Even the American enterprise institute agrees Thomas should recuse himself from Jan 6. Cases.
Svelaz, it has everything to do with racism. Most of the leftists on this blog are racists, and that is demonstrated over and over again by their comments. You may not be racist. Instead, perhaps you have diminished capacity, so you sound racist. Turley might feel Thomas should recuse himself. That is a fair opinion. I have had similar opinions on many justices, but it is only an opinion. The justices have a choice where someone else’s opinion is the basis of such recusal.
SM
S. Meyer,
“ Svelaz, it has everything to do with racism. Most of the leftists on this blog are racists, and that is demonstrated over and over again by their comments.”
No it doesn’t. Not even close. It’s about conflict of interest. It has nothing to do with racism. You WANT to make it about racism because it’s a convenient deflection on the facts before us. Turley agrees that Thomas should recuse himself and even the law requires him to do so if a conflict of interest, even the appearance of it is present.
Now that everyone knows about the texts including justice Thomas. He doesn’t have a lot of rational excuses not to recuse himself.
Start looking up what all the words in your sentence mean. You generally get a lot of definitions wrong and therefore screw up your responses. Thomas is an honest guy and will do what is right.
Chances are Thomas didn’t know about the emails until their release was forced.
I have no idea what emails or texts my wife gets unless she decides to share them with me. Those are usually about getting together with couples we know. 🙂
Ginnie did say in her texts that she discussed the topics with her “best friend” which is how she refers to Clarence. She pressured Meadows and send political messages to Clarence Thomas’s former clerks (for which she was forced to apologize). We are past the point of him not knowing but of being lobbied by his wife. Maybe he is able to vote his own mind anyway, but the appearance of conflict is there.
“she discussed the topics with her “best friend”
She discussed the necessity to buy milk for coffee with Clarence and where to go to dinner with her best friend.
That proves that opinion is not sufficient. You need verifiable facts.
Paul, I am very much relieved. 🙂
Don Juan
Just a question? How many men or women out there know what texts or e-mails are on their spouses phone? How many know who your spouse voted for? Do you know what goes on at every meeting your spouse attends? Remember a lot of decisions are made on golf courses and informal gatherings, which women complained about when they were trying to climb that corporate or political ladder. It was not so much a glass ceiling as a green ceiling like a golf course especially if you hated golf. Seems you have a high mountain to climb to demand recusal. Not impossible but damned high. If you set rules then we have to remember that they have to apply equally to all political stripes. Not a real strong point right now in political discussions these days.
How many husbands (and admittedly there are some) don’t know what their wife discussed with them. It’s not a question of what she said to others but to him. The appearance of conflict is real.
enigma – like most husbands, I have developed selective hearing over time. She is constantly saying, “Don’t you remember me saying that?” And I can honestly answer, “No!”.
Paul Schulte….Your comment is prima facie evidence that you are a married man! LOL.
I don’t believe that enigma is married, at least not to a woman.
After 50 years of wedded “bliss”. Mr Bragg still has no idea what my favorite color is, my favorite song, even down to rhe hummus I prefer….he will still buy “roasted garlic” even though I’ve told him for years that I can’t stand the bitterness of that flavor…I prefer regular garlic hummus!!
He has admitted that his favorite joke is: a husband talking with a marriage counselor and says: “My wife is always telling me that I never listen to her……or something like that”!! 🙂
Cindy, that sounds about right. We permanently married folk have different ways of looking at things.
“even down to rhe hummus I prefer….he will still buy “roasted garlic” even though I’ve told him for years that I can’t stand the bitterness of that flavor…I prefer regular garlic hummus!!”
Are you trying to say hummus comes in different flavors? Nice to know. 🙂
Cindy Bragg – I will go you one better. My wife made me get me get my hearing tested and for my age (I had lost some high notes and some low notes) it was fine. She was so mad. 🙂
Drama Queen Sen. Cory “Spartacus” Booker (D., N.J.) is calling for an “investigation” into Thomas’. Who investigated Spartacus and called for his recusal when he admitted he violated senate rules? Ah, Jersey ain’t what it used to be.
We should investigate his fake relationship with Rosario Dawson, that was used to try to foist him to the Presidency.
Margot… Drama Queen indeed. If Will Smith is relieved of his Oscar, as some are wondering about, they should give it to Miss Cory.
Cindy Bragg – if they take the Oscar from Will Smith, they should give it to all the alpha males who bonked Jada. 😉
Is the Left suggesting that Justice Thomas monitor his wife’s emails and censor what she sends out ? the days when a husband can control what a wife says are long gone.
“He’s the most qualified person in the country to be a Supreme Court justice” – GHW “Poppy” Bush – who played the biggest role in stealing the 1980 election for Reagan, and set an example for his brilliant? son to steal the 2000 election.
Maybe if J. Sotomayer recuses herself on a broad range of issues that she has publicly discussed —
Ginni Thomas’s text message exchanges with Mark Meadows weren’t public discussions.
More lefty double standards.
Cynical attempt to create a political crisis for Thomas.
Typical of these ugly people.