[Not sure if this belongs in GD or GQ. The nature of the question is GQ but it seems to be a GD IRL, so I’m guessing the latter.]
There’s been a lot of controversy lately over Clarence Thomas’ wife, Ginni Thomas, who is a right wing activist. The suggestion has been that Thomas should therefore be required to recuse himself from various cases (I’m not sure exactly which - this seems like something that could conceivably be extremely broad).
But I’ve seen some pushback as well. The counterargument is that this - spouses advocating positions on which the judge rules - is something which has long been tolerated and accepted (and that the opposition in this case is ideologically driven). Various examples have been cited, see e.g. The Baseless ‘Recusal’ Attack on Clarence Thomas | Opinion (newsweek.com).
What are the actual facts? Has it been accepted that a spouse taking a public position on something or advocating for it requires the judge spouse to recuse, or the opposite? Are the cases cited in the linked article invalid and if so, how?
Unless it is shown that she participated in the actual march around the Capitol grounds asking for Mike Pence’s head or god forbid entered into the Capitol itself then it shouldn’t matter. If she is charged with something then that is a different matter. Betting she is politically smart enough to have not marched on or entered the Capitol.
Generally recusal is only expected if there are reasons a judge believes he/she is incapable of rendering a decision based on the evidence - as opposed to outside factors. IME, judges generally define that quite narrowly.
But then there is the “appearance of impropriety” - which can be quite nebulous. My general opinion is that it can be problematic for “power couples.” If one has a position of authority, it can appear hinky if the other is active in a related field.
Of course, CT has never demonstrated any personal sense of ethics, so I imagine he would see no conflict if his wife herself was the named party in an action before him.
On a kinda related matter, I’m a federal administrative law judge. I am required to disclose my finances annually (an incredibly offensive and meaningless exercise - but that is another matter). As offensive as it is that I have to disclose my investments and those I share with my wife, I also have to disclose investments and savings that are held solely in her name.
I only offer that as an example that SOMEONE feels a spouse’s financial interests are potentially relevant to a judge’s ethics.
Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, and they are very difficult to remove if there is malfeasance. As such, I have exactly zero problem holding them to the highest possible standard of impartiality and even the appearance of impartiality.
If that means the actions of their partners are limited, then tough; that’s what they signed up for. If they don’t want their actions limited, then the justices have the utmost responsibility to recuse themselves whenever there is even the slightest intersection of the case and their partner’s actions.
I wonder if I can redirect back to the question(s) in the OP. This was not intended to be a survey of what anyone thinks should be the standard. It’s about what has traditionally been accepted as the standard, in the specific context of the examples cited in the linked article.
IOW, 1) does anyone disagree with the author of that article claiming that it’s been traditionally considered acceptable and unremarkable for judges to not recuse where their spouse has publically argued for one particular position in the case at hand (but has no personal financial stake), and 2) if someone does disagree, what is the distinction between the examples cited and the rule being applied to GT?
I wonder if Cissy Marshall did any activism during her years married to Thurgood Marshall, as I know she was a secretary/activist for the NAACP back in the day. And of course Thurgood Marshall was one of the NAACP’s most famous lawyers before he became a Supreme Court justice. But his frequent recusals were due to having served as Solicitor General under Lyndon Johnson (see also Justice Kagan), not association with the NAACP.
(I also believe that Anita Hill lied about being sexually harassed by him, and set the cause back by many years by doing so. I saw the hearings, and her body language totally gave her away; I believe that she wanted to date him, and he wasn’t interested, so she was doing this to get back at him.)
Sandra Day O’Connor’s late husband was also a prominent judge in his own right.
I don’t even understand the nature of the question. Is Clarence supposed to be the “head” of the house and “direct” his wife to do or not do certain things? The assumption in the question seems to be antiquated.
His wife is her own person. He doesn’t control her. If she makes her own choice, why is that imputed to him anymore than what I do is imputed to my wife?
If I’m a lawmaker introducing bills involving oil prices, is it great if my partner is an oil lobbyist? Or if I’m a judge ruling on a case involving said companies?
No . because the issue has nothing to do with being the head of the house or even with his wife doing or not doing things . Whether a judge should recuse themself from cases because of a spouse’s ideological position has nothing to do with anyone’s gender or being head of the house. The issue is whether it’s seen as a conflict of interest in that same way that financial interests often are - it has nothing to do with telling the spouse what to do. I had a job in which was a public officer and subject to financial disclosures and various ethics laws. The fact that I would have to essentially recuse myself from any process regarding my husband’s employer didn’t mean I was "head of the household or that I was “directing” him. Quite the opposite - the requirement for me not to be involved was a requirement regarding how I behaved, and didn’t restrict him at all.
I believe you are getting this issue confused with another issue -
His wife is her own person. He doesn’t control her. If she makes her own choice, why is that imputed to him anymore than what I do is imputed to my wife?
Yep, his wife is her own person as is yours. The thing is, though, that the people a person voluntarily associates reflect on that person - it would be rather difficult to believe that someone married to a grand wizard of the KKK didn’t share their spouse’s views , whether the person married to the grand wizard is a judge or you or me.
Or if she knew that the intent of the march was to obstruct an official proceeding, and materially aided and abetted it?
The only way we can know that is a full accounting of everyone who was present that day. Including high-profile figures and those connected to them. Especially those people. And Ginny Thomas was present on the ellipse at the rally that day.
And in Thompson v Trump, when SCOTUS upheld Congress’s right to investigate the events that Clarence Thomas’s wife was potentially implicated in, Clarence Thomas dissented. This could be construed as a sitting SCOTUS justice attempting to suppress an investigation that may have revealed wrongdoing by his wife.
None of us knows what was in Ginny or Clarence Thomas’s minds when they did what they did. But this is exactly why Clarence Thomas should have recused himself. He has a personal stake in the outcome of the January 6th investigation, and has a responsibility to the Court and the American people to eliminate even the appearance of bias or impartiality.
His failure to recuse is, IMO, grounds for impeachment (this, on top of his other shoddy participation and apparent lack of interest in doing the work of being a SCOTUS justice).
This isn’t about controlling her-This is about controlling him and the undue influence her actions and/or opinions may have on his official duties. She can do whatever the hell she wants as far as I’m concerned, but if his decisions are influenced by what she says or does instead of or in addition to the evidence presented to him during court proceedings something is wrong.
I get a financial argument, but if that was said in the thread I missed it. The upshot of this position is that if someone wants to marry Clarence Thomas, she had better resign herself to not speak publicly on issues she cares about, or her husband can resign from the Supreme Court. I don’t think that is a fair choice to put to a couple, even if you would like to see Thomas resign from the Supreme Court or have his wife shut up.
The recusal bit gets ridiculous sometimes. Yes, Clarence Thomas and his wife have very conversative positions. Sotomayor is very liberal. Roberts changes his stripes like most people change underwear. We all know that regardless of which speech or group their spouses speak in front of.
Neither of these things are being said, but since you are determined to push this narrative even after being corrected I think further efforts to continue would just be a waste of time.
Uh… Ginny was at an event, likely as a donor, possibly as an organizer, where numerous people have been charged with breaking the law, including obstruction of a government proceeding. It remains to be determined whether such lawbreaking was the entire purpose of the gathering, rather than incidental to it. But Clarence would rather use his powers of office to keep us from finding that out.
Ginny’s allowed what to believe what she wants, but it is exceedingly improper for her husband to sit in judgment of her or anyone else that had a connection to those crimes. Thomas should have recused himself; instead he dissented in favor of her faction. It is incredibly inappropriate.
Can you dig up any whatabout situations with liberal justices refusing to recuse themselves in matters pertaining to their spouses? I don’t think you can.
That’s the most uncharitable possible spin that anyone could put on it. It is like when most clients come into the office, the first thing I hear is that the judge should be disqualified because his wife’s father’s sister once knew his mother and has heard that the judge hates (whatever crime defendant is charged with) and can’t be fair.
If you were arguing that Ginny Thomas should not sit in judgment of January 6 defendants, I would agree with you based on her conduct. But if I am Clarence, I’m throwing my hands up and saying that this isn’t 1850 and I don’t order my wife around. The idea that Clarence would rule a certain way because of his wife’s beliefs stem from an old fashioned idea that the married couple is one in the eyes of the Lord.
Again, Clarence can say that there are many things he disagrees with Ginny about and he would be correct. The appearance of impropriety should not arise, again, unless one believes that the wife does as instructed by her husband. Didn’t Speaker Bercow run into this a few years ago when his wife had a “Remain” bumper sticker on her car and he pointed out that as a wife she wasn’t chattel and that while he had to be neutral, his wife could have her own opinion?
To follow up on this, everyone knew that Speaker Bercow, despite the policy and custom that UK Speakers are to remain strictly neutral, was completely pro-Remain. But nobody who has even begun to be in public life cannot have made some inclination about how they will rule on an issue. Take Thomas. We know he will vote to overrule Roe. We aren’t guessing, we know. Same with Sotomayor; she will vote to strike down the MS law as will Kagan and Breyer. We are pretty sure that Alito and Gorsuch will side with Thomas. We are less, but still pretty sure, that Barrett and Kavanaugh will side with Thomas. Roberts is a wild card.
Should any or say eight full Justices recuse themselves on that case? We get to a point where nobody can ever be a judge. But this goes even one step further where we don’t look at what a judge did, but what his spouse did. I thought that modern beliefs would overcome this old idea.
The point is that Ginny Thomas might, herself, be one of the January 6 defendants, and Clarence Thomas voted against an inquiry that might determine that.