Ginni Thomas texts spark ethical storm about husband's supreme court role

[L. Coyote]

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/mar/25/ginni-thomas-texts-clarence-ethics-supreme-court-conflict-of-interest

Calls have erupted for ethical conflict-of-interest rules on America’s top court after it was revealed that Ginni Thomas, wife of the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, pressed Donald Trump’s White House chief of staff to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The Washington Post reported that it had obtained a stash of 29 text messages between Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows, then Trump’s top White House aide, which were exchanged in the tumultuous days after the November 2020 election. In the texts, Thomas blatantly urged Meadows to do anything he could to subvert the democratic result so as to frustrate Joe Biden’s victory and keep Trump in power.

Ethics groups, members of Congress, law professors, media pundits and a slew of other interested parties have responded to the revelations with astonishment and concern. The Thomas-Meadows texts were contained in a trove of 2,320 digital communications that Meadows has handed to the House select committee investigating the storming of the US Capitol by Trump supporters on 6 January.

Those communications were only obtained by the committee after the supreme court ordered them to be transferred to Congress, rejecting claims by Trump that they were covered by executive privilege. The court forced disclosure of the material, including the Ginni Thomas texts, by a vote of 8 to 1 – with Clarence Thomas providing the only dissent.

Norman Ornstein, a senior emeritus fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, called the development “a scandal of immense proportions”. Branding Ginni Thomas a “radical insurrectionist”, he said it was time for the January 6 committee to subpoena her texts and emails to see what other incriminating evidence was out there.

......

Link to tweet

[Lovie777]

1. This wasn't a surprise . .. ..

she is a right wing nut and so is her husband.

[gopiscrap]

2. this crap should have been talked about years ago

mrs thomas has been delving in appropriate political activity for years and years...I hope they nail both of POS's

[Buckeyeblue]

6. We've been talking about it on here for years

The media has stayed away from it. Groups have been paying Ginni lots of money for her "expertise" for years. His entire SC tenure has been one big conflict of interest.

[gopiscrap]

7. I agree "we" have talked about it for years

it should have been part of the national dialouge many years ago

[Achilleaze]

3. Who is the rottenest Republican?

Clarence busy grasping for the bottom.

Russia knows for sure.

You can bet your kishka on that.

[peppertree]

11. A contest if there ever was one

[Achilleaze]

13. OK, this calls for some KGOP Bottomfeeder Kieshka music

[peppertree]

15. Yikes!

Might be handy for use as crowd dispersant in case they try to storm the capitol again in January 2025 though.

[gratuitous]

4. Ethical considerations - Clarence Thomas?

From his cynical nomination by George HW Bush through his carefully orchestrated dudgeon at his confirmation hearing to his entire career on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas has been one unbroken string of compromised ethics. More than 30 years down the line, he isn't about to suddenly develop a moral compass and resign.

Impeachment is our only course.

[Polybius]

8. We have to prove a crime first before we impeach

Perhaps the DOJ is looking into it.

[crickets]

14. Agreed. "There is a lack of moral authority on the supreme court right now..."

I find the 'right now' part of this quote from Pengelly's tweet most telling. Lack of moral authority existed the moment Clarence Thomas was confirmed in spite of Anita Hill's credible testimony. Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation was a blatant doubling down. There has been no SCOTUS moral authority for decades.

Do You Believe Her Now?
It’s time to reexamine the evidence that Clarence Thomas lied to get onto the Supreme Court — and to talk seriously about impeachment.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/02/the-case-for-impeaching-clarence-thomas.html
February 19, 2018

But it’s well worth inspecting, in part as a case study, in how women’s voices were silenced at the time by both Republicans and Democrats and as an illustration of what’s changed — and hasn’t — in the past 27 years (or even the last year). After all, it’s difficult to imagine Democrats, not to mention the media, being so tentative about such claims against a nominated justice today. It’s also worth looking closely at, because, as Smith’s account and my reporting since indicates, Thomas’s inappropriate behavior — talking about porn in the office, commenting on the bodies of the women he worked with — was more wide-ranging than was apparent during the sensational Senate hearings, with their strange Coke-can details.

But, most of all, because Thomas, as a crucial vote on the Supreme Court, holds incredible power over women’s rights, workplace, reproductive, and otherwise. His worldview, with its consistent objectification of women, is the one that’s shaping the contours of what’s possible for women in America today, more than that of just about any man alive, save for his fellow justices.

And given the evidence that’s come out in the years since, it’s also time to raise the possibility of impeachment. Not because he watched porn on his own time, of course. Not because he talked about it with a female colleague — although our understanding of the real workplace harm that kind of sexual harassment does to women has evolved dramatically in the years since, thanks in no small part to those very hearings. Nor is it even because he routinely violated the norms of good workplace behavior, in a way that seemed especially at odds with the elevated office he was seeking. It’s because of the lies he told, repeatedly and under oath, saying he had never talked to Hill about porn or to other women who worked with him about risqué subject matter.

*eyeroll* at the tentative Dems and media comment. In the face of Moscow Mitch's Senate, neither Democratic nor media reaction mattered when Kavanaugh came along to lie just as unconvincingly.

The number of women who still refuse to speak up or are actively working to undercut women fighting against sexual harassment - then and now - is depressing. It's true that Biden could have done more during the Clarence Thomas hearings, but in the "gentleman's agreement" milieu of the day, he did not. He has since apologized to Hill, though it's too little, too late at this point.

Above and beyond the issues of sexual discrimination is this: During the hearings, Thomas "huddled with GOP congressmen to brainstorm what damaging information he could unearth" on Anita Hill, and then he LIED to the Senate Judiciary Committee. A nominee to the highest court of the land LIED UNDER OATH, openly and without remorse.

Clarence Thomas is untrustworthy and unfit for his position. His motivation for any and every vote he has ever cast as a Justice is now suspect. No comment he has made about keeping his SC duties separate from his wife's activities can be taken seriously.

gratuitous, my reply to you was going to be a short "well said! doubt we'll get an impeachment, though" but then I ran across this article and just couldn't do it. I have come around.

Clarence Thomas never should have been seated on the SCOTUS, and he should be impeached. Regardless of whether anyone thinks it's possible to unseat him or not, the attempt must be made, for the very same reasons two impeachments were brought against tfg. The stakes are too high. The response is necessary.

[Hekate]

5. The High Court is not only high, it's stinking. This is past political hackery, if they are above...

….the law.

In his article today Greg Sargent said the entire email exchange between Ginni T and Meadows was couched in the language of Christian Nationalism, which we saw echoed in the signs and words of the Insurrection.

Gott Mit Uns.

[yorkster]

9. Yes. Dominionism - rampant on the right.

Barrett being a prime example on the SC.
And they are legion, so to speak.

[peppertree]

10. 'Acknowledge it and take steps to ameliorate it'?

Nah. They'd rather pretend it's not a problem - like they almost always do with things that are.

[gldstwmn]

12. If he is not held accountable then we should just give the democracy away.

It's not enough to just prosecute the low level criminals.