The House Judiciary courts subcommittee is set to hold a hearing on Supreme Court ethics on Wednesday, following the revelation of explosive pro-coup texts by Ginni Thomas, the wife of SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas.
Only to find that those ethics no longer exist in the GQPSCOTUSā¦
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has maintained his defense of Justice Thomas, characterizing calls for his recusal from election cases as part of an āinappropriate pressure campaignā by Democrats.
And yet all those texts between the Justiceās wife and CoS were just trying to set up a time to play bridge?
Noting is going to come out of it, Ginni and Clarence wonāt even be ashamedā¦au contraire, their prestige within the wingnut community will be improved.
Is it possible to argue the Supreme Court is non-partisan these days. The activities of Ginni Thomas and her husbandās refusal to act as anything other than a partisan hack makes it impossible for anyone to argue the court is concerned about the administration of justice or has the interests of all Americans in mind when they make a ruling.
āImpossibleā?
You all realize there is a rumor floating around Florida that DeSantis and Thomas talked about the Governorās redistricting map before he killed the map the Republican legislature had approved. I hope the rumor is wrong but who is to say it is in light of Ginniās text messages and Justice Thomasā refusal to recuse himself.
the wife of Justice Thomas urged Meadows to help then-President Trump steal a second term in office
Republican values.
This isnāt just putting Party over country. This is putting Trump over religious liberty.
The smart thing for Clarence Thomas to do would be to recuse. It seems that he doesnāt have the decency or honor to recuse. Judges recuse every day, when appropriate.
The question is why wonāt Clarence?
Anyone who believes thatās the case might be easily induced to try to buy a bridge in Kings County, New York.
No. Itās Putin Party over country.
I understand that there is cynicism and despair over the (lack of) accountability with regard to the Thomases.
However, the vast majority of people who are not wonks have not been up to speed on their activities. As time goes by this will change, and change greatly.
Donāt you understand unless you are an evangelical Christian there is no religious liberty. On the other hand you are free to practice any form of evangelical Christianity you want as long as you support hatred of black, brown and gay people and the right of men to rule women.
Johnson mentioned Congressā impeachment authority as a potential way to regulate Supreme Court justicesā conduct.
While it does exist unless a party has sixty-seven senators it will never happen to a SC justice.
Iād have thought Thomas would have had the sense to tell Ginny to knock the shit off in the beginning, but he obviously has no sense at all.
She has made a good living for the family as a Republican lobbyist for decades. Some say she has often traded her connection to Clarence for money.
And Iām guessing the texts that have surfaced to date are just previews of coming attractions. Ginni was a busy little beaver trying to undermine democracy and obviously didnāt think she would ever be held accountable for anything, so she left a nice trail. Some of the Thomas family fun will come out in the January 6 hearings and then the MSM will get way more interested in digging around.
Will we see any referrals to Justice for indictments or just more wandering off into the weeds?
And there is an ever growing never ending patch of weeds.
Please do not dilute your focus in the time you may have remaining.
āRep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), who chairs the subcommittee, said the panel will consider the impact of the Supreme Courtās ālack of a clearly applicable code of ethicsā and āexamine other reformsā aimed at promoting transparency and accountability for the highest court.ā
I hope the panel also considers Chief ājusticeā John Robertsā ethical lapse in sitting on a large number of formal complaints about then Appeals Court Judge B Kavanaugh that he had in his possession, but only passing them to another federal judge to act on them after Kavanaugh was confirmed. They were promptly judged moot, and summarily dismissed because Kavanaugh was no longer an Appeals Court Judge.
If that is not a serious ethical violation, what could possibly qualify as one?
If this is part of a strategy by Democrats to bring more attention to the corruption on the Court then what they may be seeking to get out of it is political, especially if SCOTUS kills Roe this summer. If ever there was a time to get the Democratic base to wake up and recognize the importance of the Court, the time is now, yesterday, and in 2010.