4 ms·

Holding him responsible, no. Demanding he recuse himself: yes. His vote after a failure to recuse on a key judgement now looks extremely suspect, and he should

Holding him responsible, no. Demanding he recuse himself: yes. His vote after a failure to recuse on a key judgement now looks extremely suspect, and he should be recusing himself not just to avoid a conflict of interest, but to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Failing to recuse himself has really caused him a level of reputational damage that non-lifetime appointees would not survive. Kind of a cosmic irony to me that after years of being the Supreme Court's most reliably banal, consistently aligned judge after a confirmation hearing where he was accused of sexual misdeeds, it's his long-suffering wife who might bring him down.

sokoloff 5y ago
His wife is not responsible for his failure to recuse himself.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  This is a very fair point and I have no idea why someone downvoted you for it.
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    The way downvoting works here is like a kind of silent geek bitchiness I will never understand. Grow some stones and say it out loud. This criticism of my point is legitimate. Ginni Thomas is responsible for her communications with Meadows, but she is clearly not responsible for Clarence Thomas failing to recuse himself. That is indeed all on him.
usernomdeguerre 5y ago
To me it already seems like he has broken that appearance, from the article: "This January, Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter in a proceeding in which Trump asked the Court to stop the House investigative committee from obtaining records of his communications relating to efforts to subvert the 2020 election results."
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  Yes -- that's the one I am referring to. This is one of those things that, had it not occurred in the aftermath of more than four of the most norm-crushing, aberrant years in the history of the western world, could have brought down even the most popular person. (This sentence applies equally well to things that have happened here in the UK in the last few months, and in both cases the problem is the same -- a polarised system where one side has got used to constantly acting in performative bad faith.)
  - bediger4000 5y ago
    There have been a lot of articles about Thomas' conflicts of interest, even before the Trump admin. Ginni Thomas lobbied against the ACA: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/142969-democrats-justice-thomas-should-recuse-himself-in-healthcare-reform-case?page=2 https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/142969-dem... That's a pretty distinct conflict of interest. It may not be illegal, or even against the rules, because the US Supreme Court is a unique body, but really? Seriously? Thomas should have recused himself on a lot of issues if his wife makes money lobbying one way or the other.
gmoore 5y ago
Do you believe he was aware ofher activities? For decades the two have bragged about knowing everything about the other, thinking with one mind, etc. You see no conflict in a Supreme Court Justice, being aware of a plot to overthrow the government and doing nothing?
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  > You see no conflict in a Supreme Court Justice, being aware of a plot to overthrow the government and doing nothing? I have no idea how you get the impression I see no conflict. The point is that even the appearance of the conflict ought to be enough to finish his career. It doesn't make him literally responsible for her actions, of course, if that is the point you're making.

sokoloff 5y ago

His wife is not responsible for his failure to recuse himself.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
This is a very fair point and I have no idea why someone downvoted you for it.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  The way downvoting works here is like a kind of silent geek bitchiness I will never understand. Grow some stones and say it out loud. This criticism of my point is legitimate. Ginni Thomas is responsible for her communications with Meadows, but she is clearly not responsible for Clarence Thomas failing to recuse himself. That is indeed all on him.

usernomdeguerre 5y ago

To me it already seems like he has broken that appearance, from the article: "This January, Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter in a proceeding in which Trump asked the Court to stop the House investigative committee from obtaining records of his communications relating to efforts to subvert the 2020 election results."

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
Yes -- that's the one I am referring to. This is one of those things that, had it not occurred in the aftermath of more than four of the most norm-crushing, aberrant years in the history of the western world, could have brought down even the most popular person. (This sentence applies equally well to things that have happened here in the UK in the last few months, and in both cases the problem is the same -- a polarised system where one side has got used to constantly acting in performative bad faith.)
- bediger4000 5y ago
  There have been a lot of articles about Thomas' conflicts of interest, even before the Trump admin. Ginni Thomas lobbied against the ACA: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/142969-democrats-justice-thomas-should-recuse-himself-in-healthcare-reform-case?page=2 https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/142969-dem... That's a pretty distinct conflict of interest. It may not be illegal, or even against the rules, because the US Supreme Court is a unique body, but really? Seriously? Thomas should have recused himself on a lot of issues if his wife makes money lobbying one way or the other.

gmoore 5y ago

Do you believe he was aware ofher activities? For decades the two have bragged about knowing everything about the other, thinking with one mind, etc. You see no conflict in a Supreme Court Justice, being aware of a plot to overthrow the government and doing nothing?

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
> You see no conflict in a Supreme Court Justice, being aware of a plot to overthrow the government and doing nothing? I have no idea how you get the impression I see no conflict. The point is that even the appearance of the conflict ought to be enough to finish his career. It doesn't make him literally responsible for her actions, of course, if that is the point you're making.