If he didn’t know his wife could be implicated by the documents at issue, he wouldn’t know that ruling on the case could create the appearance of impropriety. If he didn’t know ruling on the case could create the appearance of impropriety, I think it is unreasonable to hold it against him for failing to recuse himself.
So as before, the most you will get out of me is the qualified statement: if he knew, he should have recused.
This use of the word interest is very different to the way I had been using the word. When I wrote about her interest, I specifically meant her legal, financial, and reputational interests, i.e. personal liability.
There’s nothing improprietous about the judge sharing one party’s ideological goal, whether due to activism or simply strong belief. Why should it be a problem if the judge’s spouse does? Do you think Justice Marshall should have recused himself on all the civil rights cases? Should Justice Ginsberg have recused herself from all cases involving women’s rights? Certainly Justice Douglas had some beef with the Nixon administration, which tried to impeach him.
Sharing mutual associates with one of the parties is more tricky. You can’t get any more relevant than United States v. Nixon, the Nixon tapes case. Justice Rehnquist recused himself because, when he had been the assistant attorney general from '69-'71, mere months before the Watergate incident, he worked in the Nixon administration directly under John Mitchell (a major person of interest in that case). On the other hand John Mitchell was the Attorney General for many years and there is no question that he befriended some of the Surpeme Court Justices (probably not Douglas, who again, he tried to impeach). There was at least Justice Blackmun who Nixon & Mitchell had nominated. If Mrs. Thomas was like, a good friend of Mark Meadows, or worked with him extensively, (and Justice Thomas knew) that would be different. But so far as I can tell they weren’t particularly close.
After the next coup happens, is successful, and we are living in a fascist dictatorship aligned with Putin and the other RW autocrats, and we cease having elections that aren’t predetermined, we will probably still be squabbling about stuff like this. If we still have the ability to disagree in public with the government anyway.
This is so clear cut and obvious that it creates the appearance of conflict of interest. My evidence is all of the people that it appears this way to.
I wasn’t trying to assign odds of guilt, but odds of indictment. The question in my mind is whether there is any reasonable possibility that she might be indicted, and given that she worked closely with people who are clearly under investigation relating to the work they did together, the answer is clearly yes. I’m not saying that she’s likely to be indicted; that isn’t the standard for deciding whether an appearance of impropriety exists.
So Hunter Biden is under investigation. What do you think Joe should do about it? Resign in disgrace? That would be a ridiculous overreaction. In contrast, all that Justice Thomas is being asked to do is recuse himself from one particular group of cases.
I think the situation here would be analogous to one in which Biden ended the investigation by pre-emptively pardoning Hunter for any crimes he may have committed in the past. He could do that, in the sense that nobody has the authority to stop him, but it would be blatantly corrupt. I would be outraged, possibly to the point of calling for impeachment. I wouldn’t take Biden’s claim that his personal relationship with Hunter was irrelevant to his decision to pardon him as being even the tiniest bit credible.
If it is related to the investigation that encompasses Mrs. Thomas’s text messages, then yes.
As a counterexample, if the Maricopa county thing ends up before the Supreme Court, I don’t at present see that as related enough to warrant a recusal.
You’re correct that a Justice’s spouse having a strong desire for a case to be decided in a particular way isn’t an “interest” in the “conflict of interest” sense.
But here, he was being asked to rule on whether investigators should have access to text messages sent to and from his wife in order to conduct their criminal investigation. There’s obviously a massive conflict of interest there, even if there were no reason at all to believe that Mrs. Thomas was in any way a potential target of the investigation.
Certainly, even setting any possible future repercussions aside, the release of those e-mails has clearly exposed Ms. Thomas to widespread ridicule and greatly damaged her reputation. Should Mr. Thomas have had the power to decide whether that should happen or not?
That is true, if and only if Justice Thomas knew his wife could be implicated. Hence why I wrote,
As far as I am aware, at the time Justice Thomas dissented from Trump v. Thompson in January, it was not (publicly) known that Mrs. Thomas had texted Mark Meadows in the leadup to 1/6.
It would depend on whether the government was alleging that the people involved in the “Maricopa County thing” (not actually sure what you mean) were directly conspiring with some of the same people that Mrs. Thomas’ associates are alleged to have conspired with. If the allegation is only that they were working independently in pursuit of the same goals, I would agree recusal isn’t necessary.
(Maricopa County, Arizona did an “audit” of their 2020 elections. This “audit” involved a private company taking the ballots &etc to a cabin in the middle of the woods with no oversight, and it resulted in a media shitstorm, though the auditors did not recommend invalidating the results.)
I find it implausible that, whatever the public knew, Justice Thomas didn’t have a general idea of what was in the evidence he was ruling on. He might not have known his wife was involved, but he knew someone his wife had been working closely with was involved (it’s theoretically possible his wife had never mentioned her contacts with Mr. Meadows to him, although that claim doesn’t pass my smell test).
Anyway, I’m much more interested in arguing that Thomas should recuse himself from future cases of this nature, rather than rehashing whether he made the right decision about the now-resolved case.
Oh, yeah, the “audit”. What’s the potential criminal angle, that Arizona election officials maliciously failed in their duties to maintain a clear chain of custody of the ballots rather than handing them over to crazy people?
Just to clarify, the Supreme Court hears criminal and civil cases. There is no need for someone to be criminally implicated to give rise to the appearance of impropriety. Neither Bush v. Gore nor Trump v. Thompson were actually criminal cases.
And my point again is that there has to be some solid basis for thinking that the person might be indicted, not just “was associated with another guy who might be indicted”.
I don’t know what “the work they did together” means in the case of G Thomas. I know she sent texts urging Meadows to stop the steal and similar, but I don’t think that counts as any sort of work or relates in a criminally liable sense to anything potentially illegal that Meadows might have done. Basically, all you’re doing is speculating based on association, best as I can tell.
You keep comparing Joe Biden to Clarence Thomas. Again, in the analogy to your own argument, Joe Biden is comparable to Ginni Thomas. (Clarence is one step further removed.) JB/GT is associated with HB/MM, who might be indicted. Question is do we - based on this association alone - demand that JB/GT be treated as a potential indictee themselves?
Obviously in that scenario if there was a case involving the release of evidence related to Hunter’s actions and communications, a judge with a close relationship to Joe should recuse.
If he had voted with the rest, or if he had voted along party lines, or if there had at least been a single other justice voting with him, then it wouldn’t have been so obvious. He voted differently than the rest of the justices as he was the only one with a personal link to someone involved with the insurrection against our government.
How involved she was is something that we will learn as time goes on, but I’m sure he knew from the start, which is why he voted to try to prevent information from coming out that may end up implicating her.