Let's Get Real about Ginni (And Clarence) Thomas
To my slight surprise, the Ginni Thomas story the texts about her involvement in the January 6th conspiracy appears to be escalating rapidly. Politicos Playbook is in such a case is a good barometer. A couple days ago I felt I was pushing the envelope by saying Justice Thomas should recuse himself from any Jan 6th or Trump election (past or future elections) related cases. Over the last 36 hours, though, calls for this are not only coming from standby legal ethics experts but from a number of conservative legal types who have in the past been either indifferent to or protective of Ginni Thomass fairly open involvement in GOP partisan politics. (Justice Thomas was already the sole dissent in a case that could quite likely have involved though in the event it apparently did not communications from his wife to other participants in the Jan. 6th conspiracy.) Now the Jan.6th committee seems prepped to ask her to testify and, if she doesnt agree, subpoena her, though here there appears to be a division centering around Liz Cheney.
But all of this, I would say, dances around the real issue that I think all of us understand. Ginni Thomas obviously discussed all of this with her husband. We can pretend not to know this but we do. It was very clear that much of this controversy would or could end up before the Supreme Court. After all, this all turns on the fundamental laws of the state, which only the Supreme Court can arbitrate. Is there anything about these texts, either their substance or their affect, that tells you, Oh, well, she clearly felt strongly about this but she would know not to broach the subject with her husband or push him on it. Oh course, not. These texts are from someone who is fully feral, invoking God, a pitched battle between good and evil and more. Of course she talked about it with her husband! She thinks Joe Biden is an illegitimate interloper and for the first time in a quarter millennium patriots must overturn an election and install the loser in office and shes going to be mindful of not discussing the matter with her husband? Thats clearly absurd.
Given what we know about their politics-saturated marriage (entirely common in DC) and their shared political activism which has been very public for decades, its all but a certainty not only that the two discussed it extensively but that the two were on the same page. You think we dont know that? Gimme a break.
There is some informed speculation now that in one of Ginni Thomass more unhinged texts that she is actually referring to discussions with her husband. Who knows where that will go? But we dont need to scrutinize the texts for that. Questions of conflicts of interest or recusal in this case are technical and fairly precious. You cannot look at these texts and not know to close to a certainty, based on the texts, what is publicly known about their relationship and their history of shared partisan political activism and not know that they not only discussed the matter but that he was on the same page with her. So Thomas himself was also a party to this conspiracy, privy to its actions and goals if perhaps not taking affirmative steps to advance it.
The Thomases have for decades been indifferent to the need for Justices and their spouses to maintain at least some remove from active partisan politics. But attempts to overthrow the state itself are by definition not legitimate political activity. You cannot be a guardian of the constitution if you have also made war on it.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/lets-get-real-about-ginni-and-clarence-thomas/sharetoken/XtVMzVf19m30
Response to Zorro (Original post)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
erronis
(15,170 posts)I am a US-born citizen and I have hated parts of this government - almost always while (r)epuglcons controlled the executive branch (Nixon, Reagan, Cheney/Bush, tfg.)
Until the Gingrich era I thought the congress was probably OK with the normal differences in liberal and conservative agendas. After that it was just political war - no camaraderie and discussions on how to fix the real issues.
I also knew that SCOTUS was politically appointed but had members that tended to be real jurists, not hacks. The Bork nomination seemed to start the downward slope (again repuglicons.)
The "gov't" is a huge umbrella. We may hate the military but love foreign service and aid. We may not want regulation of certain businesses but do want our airspace to be controlled.
Unfortunately we fall into the RW media trap when talking about The Government if we don't find out which parts work and which don't.
Response to erronis (Reply #5)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
erronis
(15,170 posts)They're pretty good at frothing us librals.
Response to erronis (Reply #8)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
bucolic_frolic
(43,027 posts)2naSalit
(86,308 posts)Lonestarblue
(9,958 posts)He must have known, and perhaps even advised, that his wife was aiding insurrection, clearly illegal. Not only has he violated his own oath to uphold the US Constitution, but he has failed to act to protect the legal transfer of power from one administration to another by neglecting to mention what he most assuredly knew about plans for January 6. Even if he was unaware of the potential violence, he knew that his wife and her cohorts were trying to overturn a legal election and stop a part of the US government from fulfilling its functionthat is insurrection and he is clearly an accessory by remaining silent.
Response to Lonestarblue (Reply #3)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.