How Many Crimes Can Clarence Thomas Commit Before Something Is Done?

[DanieRains]

Judges are required by law to recuse themselves from anything they, or their spouses have a financial interest in.

That is the law.

Thomas has broken this law repeatedly.

Arrest him.

[Skittles]

1. alas, it's not considered criminal

perhaps protocol for the Supreme Court needs to be evaluated

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/03/29/justice-thomass-failure-to-recuse-may-be-wrong-but-its-not-judicial-misconduct/

of course, Thomas should never have been a judge ANYWHERE, let alone the Supreme Court

[qazplm135]

2. Failure to recuse

Isn't a crime.

[drray23]

3. no it's not the law for Supreme Court justices.

It's up to them to decide to recuse . Even the chief Justice can't force them.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. What "something" would you suggest? The only remedy is...

impeachment, and we know how well that works.

Expanding the court would work eventually, as would term limits. But, neither is answering today's problem.

[DanieRains]

5. I Think The United State Can Sue Him For Not Recusing

I think there is a case there.

[Amishman]

9. Under what statute?

I believe you would have a hard time finding it.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

10. No there isn't

SCOTUS Justices are not required to recuse themselves. They also have judicial immunity, which shields them from any lawsuit against them for any judicial actions or decisions they make.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

17. Again,

you would be wrong.

[Hoyt]

6. Think you are going to be disappointed. Plus it ain't just GOPers with financial conflicts.

[Mike Nelson]

7. Well...

... we don't have the votes to impeach him. That's the consequence. We need 60 votes in the Senate. A good Judge would recuse if there was a question about conflict of interest... just the HINT of one! Clarence Thomas does not fall into that category.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

8. 67 votes

2/3 of the Senate are needed for removal, not 3/5.

[Mike Nelson]

14. Thank you!

... we should have a Senate with 67 good people, but don't even have 60.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

19. 60? We don't even have 50.

48 is the most we can count on.

[Kaleva]

11. You're advocating arresting someone who hasn't broken a law?

Isn't that unlawful or at least morally and ethically bankrupt?

[Jedi Guy]

22. But we don't like him, see? That makes it okay. N/T

[Rincewind]

12. He got away with it before.

2000, Bush v Gore. Ginny was was working for the W. Bush campaign, and was rumored to be under consideration for a position in any W. Bush administration. Bush being president = money for the Thomas'. He did not recuse, nothing happened to him.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

18. Because he didn't break any law. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. So much disinformation in this thread. Theories of jurisprudence & law presented as if fact

... and not as questions or with doubt. Including the OP.

As I understand it, refusal to recuse is not a criminal offense and there is no mechanism to enforce it.

Perhaps there is a mechanism within the judiciary itself. They are honor bound to adhere to their traditions, including recusal.

Can the judiciary eject one of their own? Eject a peer at any same level or below? I don't remember hearing of such a case. It'd be a gruesome precedent when politics are involved.

[SWBTATTReg]

15. Another ? I have is how many has he committed already? Is every decision that he's participated in,

suspect? They do this when a rogue prosecutor or rogue police officer is ID'ed, and all of the cases they worked on, are subject to redo or being tossed out.

This is another reason why they should expand the Supreme Court, so if and when a situation like this very one occurs, the tainted 'vote' won't inadvertently affect what a normal, fully informed and not being unduly influenced Supreme Court would vote.

How many 4-5 or 5-4 votes have there been, where inappropriate influencing played a role?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

16. What crime are you talking about?

Failure to recuse is not a crime.

[2naSalit]

20. More than too many!

Although impropriety of one's conscience or lack of one is not an actual crime. Though I would argue that he is not acting in the best interests of the nation and there may be some crime involved in his indiscretion but I don't know what that would be at the moment.

[lagomorph777]

23. Obstruction of justice is an actual crime.

This is not some subtle matter of conscience. This is an attempted coverup.

[2naSalit]

24. From that perspective...

I have to agree. And it is multi-faceted. Maybe that's how the deniability gains ground, there are so many moving parts.

(Check my time stamp, I get up too damned early and I can't always come up with a complete thought before coffee.)

[lagomorph777]

21. This is not about recusal. This is about obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of justice is a felony, no matter who you are. Or we do not have the rule of law. Period.

Lots of posters talking about recusal being optional for SCROTUS - missing the point.
"Justice" Thomas committed the crime of obstruction of justice when he attempted to hide the evidence of his wife's crimes. He became an accessory after the fact (at a minimum).