Should Clarence Thomas resign?

[deadheadskier]

He was the only SCJ to side with Trump on not having white house information regarding January 6th released.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that the information contained many text messages from his wife asking Mark Meadows to overturn the election. That's totally cool right?

[easyrider16]

The media is making a lot of this but I don't see an actual conflict. The spouses of Supreme Court justices have the right to be politically active. That doesn't make for a conflict of interest unless the spouse is directly involved in the pending case as a party or lawyer. Think of Kellyanne Conway and her husband - just because Conway was a total Trump sellout doesn't mean her husband was. Same goes for Justice Thomas.

I'm not always in agreement with Thomas, and I don't see a rational explanation for his dissent in the Jan 6th case. It's a little unseemly that the spouse of a Supreme Court justice is so vocally partisan. I think it would have looked better for him and the Court if he recused himself just to avoid the appearance of a conflict. But I don't think these things are enough to prompt his resignation or impeachment.

[boston_e]

If the shoe were on the other foot and the spouse of Elena Kagan (if she had one) were involved in trying to plan a coup? Republicans would be losing their mind right now.

[deadheadskier]

The media is making a lot of this but I don't see an actual conflict. The spouses of Supreme Court justices have the right to be politically active. That doesn't make for a conflict of interest unless the spouse is directly involved in the pending case as a party or lawyer. Think of Kellyanne Conway and her husband - just because Conway was a total Trump sellout doesn't mean her husband was. Same goes for Justice Thomas.

I'm not always in agreement with Thomas, and I don't see a rational explanation for his dissent in the Jan 6th case. It's a little unseemly that the spouse of a Supreme Court justice is so vocally partisan. I think it would have looked better for him and the Court if he recused himself just to avoid the appearance of a conflict. But I don't think these things are enough to prompt his resignation or impeachment.

That's just the thing. His wife WAS actively involved in this case he was opining on. There's the text messages and she was at the rally too. He didn't recuse himself.

No chance in hell he didn't know this.

[XtremeJibber2001]

The media is making a lot of this but I don't see an actual conflict. The spouses of Supreme Court justices have the right to be politically active. That doesn't make for a conflict of interest unless the spouse is directly involved in the pending case as a party or lawyer. Think of Kellyanne Conway and her husband - just because Conway was a total Trump sellout doesn't mean her husband was. Same goes for Justice Thomas.

I'm not always in agreement with Thomas, and I don't see a rational explanation for his dissent in the Jan 6th case. It's a little unseemly that the spouse of a Supreme Court justice is so vocally partisan. I think it would have looked better for him and the Court if he recused himself just to avoid the appearance of a conflict. But I don't think these things are enough to prompt his resignation or impeachment.

That's just the thing. His wife WAS actively involved in this case he was opining on. There's the text messages and she was at the rally too. He didn't recuse himself.

No chance in hell he didn't know this.

This. Absolutely a conflict of interest. Should he resign? I'll leave that to much smarter folks than me.

[Bubba]

As I understand it, the Supreme Court does not have clear cut conflict of interest rules nor does it have rules for when a justice should recuse from a case before it. It is up to the individual justices to make the call. The Justice Thomas/Ginni Thomas case could be Exhibit A for why this needs to change.

[easyrider16]

How was she actively involved in the case? What's the actual conflict? The text messages and rally don't seem to be enough to me because they don't make her a party or directly affected by the outcome. From what I've read, the substance of her texts are just expressions of support, and attending the rally is the same. That's not an actual conflict. If she were directly employed by Trump or the campaign, that would be an actual conflict, but I haven't seen evidence of that yet.

As to making conflict rules applicable to SCOTUS, how do you enforce that? Recusal by lower court judges is reviewable at the Supreme Court. There's nobody above the Supreme Court to review recusal of Supreme Court justices.

[throbster]

I recall RBG publicly denouncimg Trump, yet she heard cases brought by his admin.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I recall RBG publicly denouncimg Trump, yet she heard cases brought by his admin.

She should have recused herself for the same.

[easyrider16]

Apples and oranges. Thomas hasn't made any public pronouncements about Trump.

[throbster]

Apples and oranges. Thomas hasn't made any public pronouncements about Trump.

I believe the term is "false equivalence". Check with deadheadloser.

[Bubba]

I recall RBG publicly denouncimg Trump, yet she heard cases brought by his admin.

She should have recused herself for the same.

She also apologized and admitted she should not have said what she said.

In the Thomas case, the Justice had to rule on an issue that would have made his wife’s communications public, including communication encouraging taking the election to the Supreme Court. Where most justices bend over backwards to avoid apparent conflicts, this couple appears to have been immune to that concern.

[boston_e]

So it is becoming clear that The wife of the soon-to-be senior SCOTUS justice is a traitor.

That’s just great.

[throbster]

So it is becoming clear that The wife of the soon-to-be senior SCOTUS justice is a traitor.

That’s just great.

Racist!

[XtremeJibber2001]

As I understand it, the Supreme Court does not have clear cut conflict of interest rules nor does it have rules for when a justice should recuse from a case before it. It is up to the individual justices to make the call. The Justice Thomas/Ginni Thomas case could be Exhibit A for why this needs to change.

... and it's starting to look much worse ...

Trump Lawyer Cited ‘Heated Fight’ Among Justices Over Election Suits
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/us/t ... jan-6.html

Wonder how Eastman knew about internal deliberations of SCOTUS?

WASHINGTON — A lawyer advising President Donald J. Trump claimed in an email after Election Day 2020 to have insight into a “heated fight” among the Supreme Court justices over whether to hear arguments about the president’s efforts to overturn his defeat at the polls, two people briefed on the email said.

The lawyer, John Eastman, made the statement in a Dec. 24, 2020, exchange with a pro-Trump lawyer and Trump campaign officials over whether to file legal papers that they hoped might prompt four justices to agree to hear an election case from Wisconsin.

“So the odds are not based on the legal merits but an assessment of the justices’ spines, and I understand that there is a heated fight underway,” Mr. Eastman wrote, according to the people briefed on the contents of the email. Referring to the process by which at least four justices are needed to take up a case, he added, “For those willing to do their duty, we should help them by giving them a Wisconsin cert petition to add into the mix.”

The pro-Trump lawyer, Kenneth Chesebro, replied that the “odds of action before Jan. 6 will become more favorable if the justices start to fear that there will be ‘wild’ chaos on Jan. 6 unless they rule by then, either way.”

Their exchange took place five days after Mr. Trump issued a call for his supporters to attend a “protest” at the Ellipse near the White House on Jan. 6, 2021, the day Congress would certify the electoral vote count confirming Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory. “Be there. Will be wild!” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter.