Awesome post, going much deeper into the crux of the problem than I did. Thank you for taking the time to post it. I wouldn’t dispute a single point you made.
Yep. Nailed it. Nicely said, Jimmy_Chitwood.
@Max_S : sometimes it’s better to watch passively as the Overton Window shifts so far rightward than to shift passively with it.
Though it’s arguably a “No True Scotsman” fallacy, I couldn’t agree more with Jimmy: there’s really no reasonable and objective way to argue that Thomas shouldn’t recuse himself from anything even tangentially 1/6 related.
There’s only blind tribalism and cognitive rigidity.
I could be wrong about this, but is there any meaningful bar for recusal of SCOTUS justices? Their decision to recuse (or not) is entirely unreviewable, and SCOTUS justices aren’t bound by any ethical rules.
There is no real reason that Thomas and his defenders shouldn’t take the position “suck it, libs” (and IMO they have). Of course it’s ethically scummy, but there’s no barrier to it except their personal sense of honor (in other words, there’s no barrier whatsoever).
Here is a very interesting take on Ginni Thomas, this article claims that in conservative circles, she’s always been considered an unserious idiot that was only tolerated because of her husband. They put forth some pretty good evidence, too.
I guess what troubles me about this piece is that it misdirects and minimizes the issue.
It misdirects, because the issue isn’t what Ginni Thomas is doing, batshit or otherwise. She has a perfect right to do all those things, within the limits of the law. The real issue is how her husband is handling his job on the SCOTUS, ignoring what – in a sane world (hat tip to @Jimmy_Chitwood ) – would be regarded as an easy call for self-recusal in cases that touch upon her activities.
It minimizes the issue by basically saying, “Oh, we all know she’s nuts, so we can safely disregard how her husband is flagrantly undermining long-held ethics requirements on the bench of the most important court in the land.” In my view, this is just wrong.
Yeah, kind of on the nose that a never-Trump conservative website they literally named “The Bulwark” would be interested in a piece that says “this isn’t a big problem, conservatives aren’t really like this.”
That is the primary concern. However, I also think we should be challenging the suggestion that Republicans regard Virginia Lamp Thomas as too nutty or idiotic to trust with any power or influence in their ranks. Glaring counterexamples include (but are not limited to) Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis. This argument doesn’t wash. If they didn’t let her into the clown car, it’s only because the clown car was already full.
Excellent point.
I’m not making the connection between the wiki article you quoted, and what I thought you were trying to argue: that the mob of people at the Ellipse constitutes a riot, the same riot which descended upon the Capitol, therefore because C. Thomas knew V. Thomas was present at the Ellipse, he should have known a reasonable person would conclude that she participated in the same riot which attacked the Capitol. (Thus creating the appearance of conflict of interest even though she did not, as a matter of fact, go to the Capitol grounds.)
Your cite argues that some people were preparing for violence before they arrived in D.C. It does not lead me to conclude that the mob of people at the Ellipse constituted a riot. My understanding is that there were tens of thousands of people at the Ellipse, and an at least one order of magnitude less of those stormed the Capitol (Newsweek reports 1,200). In the opinion of this person, it is not reasonable to assume, by virtue of being present at the Ellipse, that she participated in a riot.
~Max
I am not familiar with that website or writer. But the fact that they compare her to Jared Kushner, who they describe as the “dimmer partner” who was given things to do to make him feel important (including “destroying newspapers, losing money on real estate …”), suggests that this writer is unhinged.
Not that this can rescue Ginni Thomas, whose texts speak for themselves. Really, it’s remarkable that someone as far out as that can be married to a SC Justice. (ETA: I wonder if it’s connected to Clarence Thomas coming from a very humble background.)
Have people been charged for conspiring at the Ellipse that morning? If that is the case you are certainly right.
But I think you have things mixed up. I am aware of accusations of incitement at the Ellipse. I am aware of conspiracy in the leadup to 1/6, online &etc but not actually at the Ellipse.
~Max
The website is a Bill Kristol venture. I don’t think the writer is unhinged; I think it’s a very calculated attempt to push a narrative that it’s still OK to be a neoconservative Republican, because this lady who has the ear of the Chief of Staff and a Supreme Court justice, at a minimum, you know, she isn’t taken very seriously. Aimed directly at everyone in the political center-right, presumably with the goal of convincing them to tune the story out.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear.
I was saying that - Ginni Thomas aside - someone who describes Jared Kushner that way is unhinged (probably from Trump Derangement Syndrome). Therefore, that person’s assessment of anything else related is also suspect.
If you’re aware of accusations of incitement, then you’re aware that the Ellipse was the scene of a crime, and Virginia Lamp Thomas was present at or around the time that it happened. And she indisputably sympathizes with those who committed crimes that day. Meaning that in addition to being physically present when the crimes were committed and/or initiated, she shared their motive.
If you want to argue that this doesn’t prove that she herself committed a crime, you need to understand that this isn’t that conversation. The point is that she was sufficiently close & connected to the crimes to create the appearance that she might have criminal exposure, or knowledge of the crimes, or associations with the individuals who committed the crimes. And for the purposes of judicial recusal, this connection is abundantly sufficient to justify calling for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from all cases relating to the matter.
The criminal burden of proof isn’t operative here. The operating principle is that Virginia Lamp Thomas is too close to the crimes and the people who committed them for her husband to sit in judgment of those crimes, or the investigation of those crimes. If the argument is that she was removed from it by a couple hundred meters so it’s not really that close, you’ve already lost. The social proximity is at least as important has her physical proximity (which isn’t negligible).
There may be something you know that I don’t. The only person I am aware of who was charged with incitement was President Trump himself, and Mrs. Thomas apparently left before the President took the stage. Giuliani, Trump Jr, and Brooks were also accused of incitement and are persons of interest. The key point is that these individuals spoke to the crowd with incendiary language, some members of the crowd subsequently attacked the Capitol.
Mrs. Thomas is not alleged to have personally attacked the Capitol, nor is she alleged to have been a speaker at the rally. The only sense in which I can reasonably conclude she is a person of interest to the investigation is as a potential conspirator. And in my opinion that is only weakly established after learning that she was in communications with Mark Meadows about overturning the 2020 election results.
It’s not like the text message are smoking gun evidence of a coup d’état conspiracy. But you don’t need conclusive evidence to create the appearance of impropriety. However, without knowledge of the text messages, I don’t see an appearance of impropriety at all. Simply having attended the rally earlier that day is too far removed, IMO. There’s nothing improprietous about a judge’s wife being sympathetic to one party in a suit. She could go so far as to submit an amicus brief. (Note, if the circumstances allowed for jurisdiction shopping, my rationale breaks down.) I wouldn’t hold Judge Thomas to a higher standard than myself if I were in his position, so my opinion is as of yet unchanged.
~Max
Sorry, Max. I hid your response by mistake. It’s easy to do when using mod tools, I’m afraid. Again my apologies.
There is. It’s the part of @HMS_Irruncible’s post you left out:
The part you keep disregarding is that the standard you’re trying to apply… doesn’t apply. We don’t know if Clarence Thomas knew about those text messages. We can infer that he may have, especially since one of the text messages to Meadows referred to sharing information with her “best friend.” She has commonly referred to her husband in this way.
Thomas knew the Supreme Court was likely going to hear cases relating to the release of text messages to the January 6th Committee – and in fact, one was. That’s enough for him to recuse. Full stop.
If I had to guess, I think Thomas’s actions in this particular case are damaging to the American conservative movement.
I don’t think in a vacuum they benefit from the legitimacy SCOTUS being damaged and while this incident isn’t unique in terms of damaging the legitimacy of the SCOTUS or just generally the political order in the US, it basically damaged the SCOTUS while accomplishing nothing else as long as we keep getting these cases decided 8-1.
I of course don’t expect any change in position from “suck it libs” in the future however.
Exactly my point from post #100.
Owing to the prestige of the office, and the presumption that the Justice is acting ethically, I will not make that inference. But if it comes out that he knew his wife would be implicated by his decision, then I agree he should have recused himself.
~Max
It’s damaging to the couple dozen dudes over at National Review Online who are the only ones still trying to sell the farce that conservatism was ever a principled, elite intellectual movement.
The rest of them? They’re just fine. They’re probably glad to finally remove the masks and be who they really are.