Could you describe behavior by Ginny Thomas that you think would be grounds for recusal, so I can understand where you’re coming from here? You’re talking about the actual commission of crimes, which to me is so far over the bar that it’s hard to get a good sense of what your position actually is.
What kind of texting could Ginny Thomas have been doing related to the insurrection, given what Thomas’ votes were, that you feel like would be, like, 7% over the threshold of requiring recusal? Do you think only actually literally planning it satisfies that test?
What if she made a speech on January 6th (not advocating imminent lawless action)? What if she was texting with Trump? What if she said to Meadows “and Clarence agrees?” Where are we at here.
[Aside]
Do you think she really calls him Clarence? I’m not doubting you, just wondering. When people are together for a while, they tend to develop abbreviated terms for each other. But Clarence doesn’t really lend itself to a cutesy shortened version.
Clare? Too feminine. Unless that’s their little inside joke.
I’d bet it’s a nickname that doesn’t derive from his first name. Given his girth, advanced age, and booming voice, probably something like Papa.
Or a take on Long Dong Silver. It started as something kinky, but now he’s just LD. Yeah, that’s probably it.
This is irrelevant to the point that the Supreme Court can make rulings about how evidence is admitted that may lead to findings of fact about a crime.
Which, as I said, already occurred in regards to January 6th. In Trump v. Thompson, SCOTUS made a ruling concerning the admission of evidence of the crimes of January 6th - a crime scene where Ginny Thomas was present, and has actively corresponded with individuals such as Mark Meadows who are potentially implicated in the crime.
Clarence Thomas was the only one who dissented from the majority opinion, which held that Trump had no executive privilege to withhold documents concerning Jan 6th, even if he were still currently the president. That dissent alone is enough to raise eyebrows.
And now that we know Ginny was present at the crime scene, and communicating with Mark Meadows and Jared Kushner? Thomas’s failure to recuse is quite obviously improper, and it is highly likely that his ruling was corrupted by his desire to shield his wife from scrutiny by shielding Trump’s documents from scrutiny.
Oh yeah, I think Papa or something in that genre is for sure an even-odds favorite, with considerable smart money behind His Honor, The Court, Milord, and so on.
To understand the statement, one needs to start with the court’s quorum requirement. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1, as well as the court’s Rule 4, six justices are needed for a quorum. That means that if more than three justices are unable to participate in a case for some reason — such as a conflict of interest that requires recusal — the Supreme Court lacks the power to decide a case. So what happens when there’s no quorum? Well, the law states that “if a majority of the qualified justices shall be of opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next ensuing term, the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court.” Such orders are rare, but not exceptionally so; just last term, Justice Neil Gorsuch was called upon to enter such an order in a case in which the other eight justices had been named as defendants and thus had to recuse themselves.
But would a J6 case be one in which SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, and – if so – what, then ?
Semantics aside, you know exactly what happened here. The Court issued an order denying the stay, and Clarence Thomas publicly stated his dissent (this word still means “disagreement” regardless of other specific meanings).
And his position is made even more absurd by the opinion of the majority, expressed in their order, stated that executive privilege wouldn’t hold in this case even if Trump were still currently the President.
Thomas was way out on a ridiculous limb here. Why? Nothing in his record suggests he’s a moron. Given the fact that his wife was involved in the events surrounding the crime for which evidence was being sought, and Thomas’s refusal to recuse himself, corruption is the only reasonable answer.
This is incorrect. A majority opinion in a decided case is binding precedent. A justice’s statement (for or against) issuing a stay is not.
For example, Justice Breyer regularly issues statements regarding the granting or denial of stays in death penalty cases. It does not legally affect the outcome of the underlying case(s).
Ya think? I’m inclined to be more cynical. I think Bush senior viewed his SCOTUS appointments as primarily a crapshoot that wouldn’t begin to be evaluated for decades but which would, instantly, shore up his cred with the right wing of his party. “Yeah, if you got a black guy who the rightwing nutjobs love, that’s perfect! What do I care about his judicial philosophy or his competence?”
Clarence’s wife Ginni (using first names not out of disrespect but to distinguish between them) sent texts that were borderline seditious–probably not seditious by the legal definition, but arguably seditious within common parlance.
Clarence may or may not have known about the exact texts, but it beggars belief to to suggest that he didn’t know his wife was in contact with the White House over efforts to overturn the election.
January 6.
Congress asked for records about people who were in contact with the White House over efforts to overturn the election.
The case was eventually elevated to the Supreme Court.
Thomas, almost certainly knowing that his wife was one of those people and that her private communications might be made public, chose not to recuse himself from the vote on whether to take the case.
Is that substantially correct? Am I leaving out anything important?
Because if I’ve got it right, that last point is pretty damning.
Just how he voted, really. If he had said, “My wife didn’t do anything wrong, and so has nothing to hide, so I will vote along with the unanimous decision.” Then the matter would be academic.
If he had voted along with a majority to block the case, then we may still think that there was something unethical about it, but at least he would have company in his decision, and more importantly, it would actually have an effect.
As it was, it was a meaningless vote, it demonstrated corruption, but didn’t actually accomplish the goal of that corruption.
I don’t really want to wade into the general topic, but I think you’re misreading the Court’s order in Thompson v. Trump. The Court didn’t find (or even address) whether it thought the materials were privileged.
The Order says: (1) the question is whether (and to what degree) a former president can invoke executive privilege, but (2) the court of appeals concluded that these documents weren’t privileged even if the sitting president had tried to assert it and therefore (3) the question presented didn’t matter in this case and they weren’t going to decide it. (And by the way, (4) everyone should disregard what the court of appeals said about the question presented since it was dicta).
I don’t have an opinion whether a solo dissent is evidence of being either corrupt or a moron, but if interesting, between OT2005 and OT2020, the total number of solo dissents in decided cases appears to be: (1) Thomas (34); (2) Sotomayor (16); (3) Alito (11); (4) Breyer (8); (5) Gorsuch (2); (6) Roberts (1); and 0 for Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. (Obviously, only Thomas, Breyer, and Roberts were on the Court for that entire period. While on the bench, it looks like Ginsburg was clearly number 2 behind Thomas).
Ancient recollections of discussions w/ a friend who clerked for a Supreme (I forget which), but according to this guy, at the time, Thomas as a power lifter, and aggressive as all fuck on the b-ball court. The kinda guy who will run you over, while never believing he committed a foul.
So I’d bet on a macho nickname along the lines of “Big Dog” or some such.
I stand by my position that - for the sake of propriety - if one spouse takes a very few very prominent and influential positions, while in that position, their SO ought to refrain from taking extreme social or political stances. Sure - impossible to define clearly, and ridiculously quaint to think that propriety would play a role in such things. And in my personal opinion, advocating insurrection qualifies as extreme.
I hope I would feel the same if Kamala Harris’ husband were - I dunno - locking himself to the gates at a naval yard, occupying Wall Street, or something.
Maybe I’ll get around to looking up whether the Hatch Act applies to Supremes. I am a federal employee, and in some respects, my position restricts partisan political actions my spouse can take.
And in my personal opinion, advocating insurrection qualifies as extreme.