Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett need to be impeached, whether or not they are found guilty by the Senate. Thomas on the grounds you have stated, Dr. Reich, and Barrett because she illegally put her religious prejudices ahead of the law. The First amendment is very clear on the separation of Church and State. All nine justices swore an oath to uphold the Constitution - not to reinterpret it according to their religious or personal bias. Amendment 1 begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting," then goes on to delineate the instances where laws may not be made. first and foremost is the establishment of religion. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCE may any law place religious credo in place of justice. Freedom of speech or the PRESS (which now includes the broader term media) cannot be abridged. PEACEFUL assembly must be allowed as well as he right to petition the Government. It is too bad that so many among the 'conservative movement' particularly the maniacal "Alt-Right" either have never read the Constitution, or if they read it they had not the wits to comprehend it.
Supreme court Justices are not governed by any code of ethics. The individual justices decide what they can and cannot do. Every other part of the judiciary is subject to ethical considerations. Justice Roberts can not compel Thomas to recuse himself and the Justice has shown no qualms about sitting in judgement of cases where he has received gifts and awards from either the parties or their attorneys. He will never do the right thing voluntarily, because that might put his wife at risk so one can only hope that there is enough pressure from the 8 other judges to force his hand.
Ginni Thomas is typically referred to as a “conservative activist,” which is incorrect.
She is a political OPERATIVE and consultant, paid very handsomely, in no small part because of who her husband is, and she, not her husband, is the major breadwinner in that family.
And, like almost all married couples, their finances are commingled. What she earns he banks, and spends and vice versa.
As such, even when Ginni Thomas is not promoting or influencing matters that are or will be before the Supreme Court, there is nothing on her plate that, by virtue of financial interest, does not potentially influence the vote of her husband on the Court (I’d add that it influences the questions he asks of lawyers during oral arguments, but he’s more silent than — as the Lina Lamont character in the great musical comedy “Singin’ in the Rain” puts it so memorably, “Calvin Coolidge, put t’gither!”).
Yes, because of this glaring conflict of interest Clarence Thomas should resign from the court or, in the absence of retirement, recuse himself from any case in which his wife has taken as much as a nickel for promoting the conservatives’ cause. At the very least, every 5-4 case ever argued during Clarence Thomas’s decades on the court in which he was part of the majority needs to be re-litigated., because their outcomes, each and every one of them, smell like week-old fish.
The right wing SC does not care. They are bought. I heard and maybe you can confirm 3 of them were lawyers in Florida 2000 Gore/Bush trying to stop the vote. The 4th person was Marco Rubio. Break the law , get a promotion. It’s simple math. Tragic. Yes OUT Thomas. Sadly they are so insulated and we are not organized to derail their momentum.
This post trump era is revealing so many areas where accountability is neither enforced or even considered - depending on who you are. We need to get Democrats in control of all 3 branches so we can right the wrongs, provide clear and undisputable laws/guidelines, and itemize what happens to those who find a way around our Constitution and laws.
Thomas was quoted in an article as saying, "The liberals have made my life hell for 20 years and now I'm going to make their lives hell" Sen Whitehouse has written a letter to the chief asking him to designate someone to testify before his Senate committee. No response. Whitehouse is fed up with this SuCt. See his books CAPTURED and THE SCHEME. The six on the court have lost the respect of the legal community and, indeed, lay citizens as well. Because the selection SOP is political, we too often get less than sterling legal minds; instead, we get party apparatchiks. The way Alaska selects its judiciary is contrary and it gets the best legal minds the state has to offer. See THE CASE AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT, by Chemerinsky; look in index under Alaska. There appears to be no hope for the court until the SOP is drastically changed. As for Thomas, he seems "twisted" in the sense that he appears to be against all the societal aspects that made it possible for him to advance career-wise; and, justice seems to be the least thing he thinks about. The Trump legal battle that looms gives one the "willies" when thinking of it going to this court. Still, the light that will be shown on the harmful irregularities, their number and magnitude, by the legal proceedings will have the beneficial effect we "all" desire; one can only hope.
28 U.S. Code § 455 is a law without enforcement or a penalty. There are too many of these laws on the books. Despite that, any and all pressure should be brought to bear to check current behavior.
The current situation illustrates the need for a disciplined, long-term effort to bring the Federal court system into its proper place in a 21st Century democracy. The Supreme Court, in particular, is a relic of the colonial era and 18th Century England. It may have been the best we could do in the 18th Century but a modern democracy demands more.
As Sheldon Whithouse has noted, building awareness by pulling back the curtains and letting a bit of sunlight in, is needed. From there, much can and should be done including making the court a suitable size for a large country (e.g. Germany with two panels of 8 members), introducing term limits, and developing an ethics system with enforcement. Even the internal debate rules with serial case debates from most tenured (Thomas) to least (Jackson) are woefully out of date.
One would hope that a Chief Justice, who is a guardian of the institution, would be the first to drive for modernization and transparency. Sadly, that is not what we are seeing.
Personally, I think this is the most serious & immediate problem we have. The conservative majority on the Supreme Crt. has been bought & they have no shame. They are poised to rule in a manner that will cause catastrophic harm to our democracy.
We have three equal branches of govt. The purpose of having three equal branches is so they can act as checks on each other if one branch goes rogue. What we have now is a Supreme Crt. (for the 1st time in our history) majority colluding with seditious members of the legislative branch to fundamentally alter how Americans are governed as well as how we live.
RR suggests Chief Justice Roberts should publicly state that Justice Thomas must recuse himself from cases having to do with the 2020 election because his wife was intimately involved with republicans who planned and attempted to overthrow our government. But, I think if Chief Justice Roberts was inclined to do that he would have already done it. Which, by the way says a great deal about how he views the situation.
But, wait--there’s a federal law requiring any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the U.S. to disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Notice it says “might reasonably be questioned.” It doesn’t say there needs to be proof of a conflict of interest. Since in actuality Justice Thomas has already violated that law, the Dept. of Justice could convene a Grand Jury to to hear evidence to that effect and recommend charging Thomas with a crime. Considering DOJ’s reluctance to pursue a former president for conspiring to overthrow our govt. by a violent insurrection to keep himself in power, I doubt the DOJ is interested in doing that. (Why DOJ wouldn’t be interested is another question for another day.)
Another alternative is for the senate to hold public hearings on Justice Thomas’ alleged violation of the law & consider whether or not he in fact violated it.
It seems to me if the senate were to do something like that they should go all the way down that road and impeach him.
Here’s the thing, trust in the U.S. Supreme Court is currently extremely low. The reason is because the Court’s conservative majority has been co-opted by a political process that has in turn resulted in a loss of the Court’s legitimacy as an independent branch of our government. If the American public doesn’t believe the Court is legitimate, the Rule of Law also loses legitimacy and that’s a problem so over-whelming it can’t be dealt with here. There’s one other alternative RR didn’t mention, and that’s to expand the Court by 4 more justices.
Expansion of the Supreme Court by 4 justices would restore its legitimacy. Currently, what we have is a bare majority of a handful of unaccountable, unelected justices who became justices because one party blatantly refused to follow two-hundred fifty year old norms, which had never before been done. Even worse, they did it in order to promote a radical ideology extremist politicians wanted that’s unequivocally against the best interests of the majority of Americans.
Adding 4 seats would bring the size of the Court into alignment with the number of circuit courts, which is historically pertinent in the history of Supreme Court expansion. Today, there are 13 circuit courts, so it makes perfect sense to follow precedent and set the number of justices at 13. As RR said, “The point of the federal law governing judicial conflicts of interest is to preserve the public’s trust in our legal system by eliminating even the appearance of partiality.” The sooner this is addressed, the better it will be.
The Supremes have given themselves the privilege to not prosecute family members. Ginny under this statute would not have to testify. Clarence Thomas is a crook. Why are judges taking money from lobbyists? Is everything for sale? Well I was raised to respect people and their beliefs. Justice Roberts is not in charge of anything. I have never seen so much corruption in our Courts. Get rid of Filibuster, Citizens United, Gerrymandering. And the damn Electoral College is the worst of all voter suppression. The Republicans are the not able to win unless they cheat. Our elections have been rigged for decades. All you need to do is cheat. Bull sugar! Until we can stop the madness of the MAGA we will never be free.
They bought 6 justices. Roberts and Kavanaugh were the Point Counsel for the FL mess in 2000, Gorsuch's Mom wrecked the EPA, and Thomas + Alito are terrifyingly corrupt monetarily. This has been a 50 year plan. And it worked - because most Democrats only vote for President and are literally asleep. Watch Fox for 30 minutes - you will come away terrified. If we are thinking it's only Thomas, we haven't paid attention. Reagan was the "original Trump". An ugly racist, anti-semite and misogynist. Educate yourself on Iran-Contra - your head will explode.
I am a college professor currently, but I was an Economist for a money center bank for 20 years. I assign my students this substack.
The issue in the Moore case - and the fact Judge Thomas is unlikely to recuse - is further reason for the Special Counsel to include Ginni Thomas as a co-conspirator with Trump and the rest of those - including several sitting members of Congress - who conspired to overthrow our 2020 presidential election. If my memory serves me correct, the way Abe Fortas, many years ago, was "convinced" to resign from the court was because of an issue regarding his wife. Maybe this would be the way to get Thomas to resign - some kind of "deal" regarding his wife. The reality in America is the Supreme Court has been turning this nation to the "right" for, at least, since the Bush v Gore decision deciding the 2000 election. A decision which brought us Iraq and Afghanistan - two shameful "blots" on American history. That was followed by the "Citizens United" decision and then McConnell's preventing President Obama from putting Merrick Garland on the court. Still, democratic voters didn't feel the importance of Supreme Court Justices enough to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Hopefully, they now realize EVERY election going forward is CRITICAL if, for no other reason, than to prevent another right wing Justice being appointed by a republican president. Republicans have been focused for years on the Court AND the state legislatures for the very reason behind the upcoming Moore decision. It's unlikely the issue with Ginni Thomas will resolve itself by the time this decision comes down - but we KNOW how Judge Thomas is going to vote and we KNOW the court doesn't care enough about it's "poll numbers" to urge him to recuse. To me, this is clear evidence that the republican "slow motion" coup d'etat has been surreptitiously moving along out of "view" of our so-called "liberal media" for several decades. Trump might be fading away but the danger persists. And, for anyone who believes Ginni Thomas when she claims to "never" share her politics with her husband, well, I've got a .....................................
We (Americans) are no more ready to hold Clarence Thomas accountable today as we were when Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment, when Congress pulled a high tech lynching on her. On the other hand, we're also not ready to see a SCOTUS that does not favor male privilege. Comments? ~RD
His partisan actions, political involvement in the Court, acceptance of gratuities, speaking at far right orgs gatherings, refusal to recuse himself, and he and his wife’s connections with Jan 6th should be placed in Articles of Impeachment.
But, right away, Congress needs to enact rules of Conduct for SCOTUS, subject to findings of malfeasance for jurors violating these standards. And stack the Court.
Ma'am - the vaccines we have work very well. You need to get boosters, but they work 95% efficacy. The treatments change as the virus mutates, but most of the treatments are incredibly effective. You need to get them from a Doctor. You are very wrong about this, scientifically, as many people with more medical experience than I have (married to a Dr).
You are not my "moral compass" - I'm 58 years old, and I don't need your help. Both sides do NOT do it. The Democrats are very different than the GQP. Watch 3 nights of MSNBC - you will learn lots of amazing things.
Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett need to be impeached, whether or not they are found guilty by the Senate. Thomas on the grounds you have stated, Dr. Reich, and Barrett because she illegally put her religious prejudices ahead of the law. The First amendment is very clear on the separation of Church and State. All nine justices swore an oath to uphold the Constitution - not to reinterpret it according to their religious or personal bias. Amendment 1 begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting," then goes on to delineate the instances where laws may not be made. first and foremost is the establishment of religion. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCE may any law place religious credo in place of justice. Freedom of speech or the PRESS (which now includes the broader term media) cannot be abridged. PEACEFUL assembly must be allowed as well as he right to petition the Government. It is too bad that so many among the 'conservative movement' particularly the maniacal "Alt-Right" either have never read the Constitution, or if they read it they had not the wits to comprehend it.
Supreme court Justices are not governed by any code of ethics. The individual justices decide what they can and cannot do. Every other part of the judiciary is subject to ethical considerations. Justice Roberts can not compel Thomas to recuse himself and the Justice has shown no qualms about sitting in judgement of cases where he has received gifts and awards from either the parties or their attorneys. He will never do the right thing voluntarily, because that might put his wife at risk so one can only hope that there is enough pressure from the 8 other judges to force his hand.
Ginni Thomas is typically referred to as a “conservative activist,” which is incorrect.
She is a political OPERATIVE and consultant, paid very handsomely, in no small part because of who her husband is, and she, not her husband, is the major breadwinner in that family.
And, like almost all married couples, their finances are commingled. What she earns he banks, and spends and vice versa.
As such, even when Ginni Thomas is not promoting or influencing matters that are or will be before the Supreme Court, there is nothing on her plate that, by virtue of financial interest, does not potentially influence the vote of her husband on the Court (I’d add that it influences the questions he asks of lawyers during oral arguments, but he’s more silent than — as the Lina Lamont character in the great musical comedy “Singin’ in the Rain” puts it so memorably, “Calvin Coolidge, put t’gither!”).
Yes, because of this glaring conflict of interest Clarence Thomas should resign from the court or, in the absence of retirement, recuse himself from any case in which his wife has taken as much as a nickel for promoting the conservatives’ cause. At the very least, every 5-4 case ever argued during Clarence Thomas’s decades on the court in which he was part of the majority needs to be re-litigated., because their outcomes, each and every one of them, smell like week-old fish.
The right wing SC does not care. They are bought. I heard and maybe you can confirm 3 of them were lawyers in Florida 2000 Gore/Bush trying to stop the vote. The 4th person was Marco Rubio. Break the law , get a promotion. It’s simple math. Tragic. Yes OUT Thomas. Sadly they are so insulated and we are not organized to derail their momentum.
This post trump era is revealing so many areas where accountability is neither enforced or even considered - depending on who you are. We need to get Democrats in control of all 3 branches so we can right the wrongs, provide clear and undisputable laws/guidelines, and itemize what happens to those who find a way around our Constitution and laws.
Thomas was quoted in an article as saying, "The liberals have made my life hell for 20 years and now I'm going to make their lives hell" Sen Whitehouse has written a letter to the chief asking him to designate someone to testify before his Senate committee. No response. Whitehouse is fed up with this SuCt. See his books CAPTURED and THE SCHEME. The six on the court have lost the respect of the legal community and, indeed, lay citizens as well. Because the selection SOP is political, we too often get less than sterling legal minds; instead, we get party apparatchiks. The way Alaska selects its judiciary is contrary and it gets the best legal minds the state has to offer. See THE CASE AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT, by Chemerinsky; look in index under Alaska. There appears to be no hope for the court until the SOP is drastically changed. As for Thomas, he seems "twisted" in the sense that he appears to be against all the societal aspects that made it possible for him to advance career-wise; and, justice seems to be the least thing he thinks about. The Trump legal battle that looms gives one the "willies" when thinking of it going to this court. Still, the light that will be shown on the harmful irregularities, their number and magnitude, by the legal proceedings will have the beneficial effect we "all" desire; one can only hope.
28 U.S. Code § 455 is a law without enforcement or a penalty. There are too many of these laws on the books. Despite that, any and all pressure should be brought to bear to check current behavior.
The current situation illustrates the need for a disciplined, long-term effort to bring the Federal court system into its proper place in a 21st Century democracy. The Supreme Court, in particular, is a relic of the colonial era and 18th Century England. It may have been the best we could do in the 18th Century but a modern democracy demands more.
As Sheldon Whithouse has noted, building awareness by pulling back the curtains and letting a bit of sunlight in, is needed. From there, much can and should be done including making the court a suitable size for a large country (e.g. Germany with two panels of 8 members), introducing term limits, and developing an ethics system with enforcement. Even the internal debate rules with serial case debates from most tenured (Thomas) to least (Jackson) are woefully out of date.
One would hope that a Chief Justice, who is a guardian of the institution, would be the first to drive for modernization and transparency. Sadly, that is not what we are seeing.
Personally, I think this is the most serious & immediate problem we have. The conservative majority on the Supreme Crt. has been bought & they have no shame. They are poised to rule in a manner that will cause catastrophic harm to our democracy.
We have three equal branches of govt. The purpose of having three equal branches is so they can act as checks on each other if one branch goes rogue. What we have now is a Supreme Crt. (for the 1st time in our history) majority colluding with seditious members of the legislative branch to fundamentally alter how Americans are governed as well as how we live.
RR suggests Chief Justice Roberts should publicly state that Justice Thomas must recuse himself from cases having to do with the 2020 election because his wife was intimately involved with republicans who planned and attempted to overthrow our government. But, I think if Chief Justice Roberts was inclined to do that he would have already done it. Which, by the way says a great deal about how he views the situation.
But, wait--there’s a federal law requiring any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the U.S. to disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Notice it says “might reasonably be questioned.” It doesn’t say there needs to be proof of a conflict of interest. Since in actuality Justice Thomas has already violated that law, the Dept. of Justice could convene a Grand Jury to to hear evidence to that effect and recommend charging Thomas with a crime. Considering DOJ’s reluctance to pursue a former president for conspiring to overthrow our govt. by a violent insurrection to keep himself in power, I doubt the DOJ is interested in doing that. (Why DOJ wouldn’t be interested is another question for another day.)
Another alternative is for the senate to hold public hearings on Justice Thomas’ alleged violation of the law & consider whether or not he in fact violated it.
It seems to me if the senate were to do something like that they should go all the way down that road and impeach him.
Here’s the thing, trust in the U.S. Supreme Court is currently extremely low. The reason is because the Court’s conservative majority has been co-opted by a political process that has in turn resulted in a loss of the Court’s legitimacy as an independent branch of our government. If the American public doesn’t believe the Court is legitimate, the Rule of Law also loses legitimacy and that’s a problem so over-whelming it can’t be dealt with here. There’s one other alternative RR didn’t mention, and that’s to expand the Court by 4 more justices.
Expansion of the Supreme Court by 4 justices would restore its legitimacy. Currently, what we have is a bare majority of a handful of unaccountable, unelected justices who became justices because one party blatantly refused to follow two-hundred fifty year old norms, which had never before been done. Even worse, they did it in order to promote a radical ideology extremist politicians wanted that’s unequivocally against the best interests of the majority of Americans.
Adding 4 seats would bring the size of the Court into alignment with the number of circuit courts, which is historically pertinent in the history of Supreme Court expansion. Today, there are 13 circuit courts, so it makes perfect sense to follow precedent and set the number of justices at 13. As RR said, “The point of the federal law governing judicial conflicts of interest is to preserve the public’s trust in our legal system by eliminating even the appearance of partiality.” The sooner this is addressed, the better it will be.
The Supremes have given themselves the privilege to not prosecute family members. Ginny under this statute would not have to testify. Clarence Thomas is a crook. Why are judges taking money from lobbyists? Is everything for sale? Well I was raised to respect people and their beliefs. Justice Roberts is not in charge of anything. I have never seen so much corruption in our Courts. Get rid of Filibuster, Citizens United, Gerrymandering. And the damn Electoral College is the worst of all voter suppression. The Republicans are the not able to win unless they cheat. Our elections have been rigged for decades. All you need to do is cheat. Bull sugar! Until we can stop the madness of the MAGA we will never be free.
They bought 6 justices. Roberts and Kavanaugh were the Point Counsel for the FL mess in 2000, Gorsuch's Mom wrecked the EPA, and Thomas + Alito are terrifyingly corrupt monetarily. This has been a 50 year plan. And it worked - because most Democrats only vote for President and are literally asleep. Watch Fox for 30 minutes - you will come away terrified. If we are thinking it's only Thomas, we haven't paid attention. Reagan was the "original Trump". An ugly racist, anti-semite and misogynist. Educate yourself on Iran-Contra - your head will explode.
I am a college professor currently, but I was an Economist for a money center bank for 20 years. I assign my students this substack.
It is so frustrating that the entire system seems so dysfunctional
The issue in the Moore case - and the fact Judge Thomas is unlikely to recuse - is further reason for the Special Counsel to include Ginni Thomas as a co-conspirator with Trump and the rest of those - including several sitting members of Congress - who conspired to overthrow our 2020 presidential election. If my memory serves me correct, the way Abe Fortas, many years ago, was "convinced" to resign from the court was because of an issue regarding his wife. Maybe this would be the way to get Thomas to resign - some kind of "deal" regarding his wife. The reality in America is the Supreme Court has been turning this nation to the "right" for, at least, since the Bush v Gore decision deciding the 2000 election. A decision which brought us Iraq and Afghanistan - two shameful "blots" on American history. That was followed by the "Citizens United" decision and then McConnell's preventing President Obama from putting Merrick Garland on the court. Still, democratic voters didn't feel the importance of Supreme Court Justices enough to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Hopefully, they now realize EVERY election going forward is CRITICAL if, for no other reason, than to prevent another right wing Justice being appointed by a republican president. Republicans have been focused for years on the Court AND the state legislatures for the very reason behind the upcoming Moore decision. It's unlikely the issue with Ginni Thomas will resolve itself by the time this decision comes down - but we KNOW how Judge Thomas is going to vote and we KNOW the court doesn't care enough about it's "poll numbers" to urge him to recuse. To me, this is clear evidence that the republican "slow motion" coup d'etat has been surreptitiously moving along out of "view" of our so-called "liberal media" for several decades. Trump might be fading away but the danger persists. And, for anyone who believes Ginni Thomas when she claims to "never" share her politics with her husband, well, I've got a .....................................
We (Americans) are no more ready to hold Clarence Thomas accountable today as we were when Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment, when Congress pulled a high tech lynching on her. On the other hand, we're also not ready to see a SCOTUS that does not favor male privilege. Comments? ~RD
Agree, agree, agree...
His partisan actions, political involvement in the Court, acceptance of gratuities, speaking at far right orgs gatherings, refusal to recuse himself, and he and his wife’s connections with Jan 6th should be placed in Articles of Impeachment.
But, right away, Congress needs to enact rules of Conduct for SCOTUS, subject to findings of malfeasance for jurors violating these standards. And stack the Court.
Ma'am - the vaccines we have work very well. You need to get boosters, but they work 95% efficacy. The treatments change as the virus mutates, but most of the treatments are incredibly effective. You need to get them from a Doctor. You are very wrong about this, scientifically, as many people with more medical experience than I have (married to a Dr).
You are not my "moral compass" - I'm 58 years old, and I don't need your help. Both sides do NOT do it. The Democrats are very different than the GQP. Watch 3 nights of MSNBC - you will learn lots of amazing things.