How Justice Clarence Thomas violated federal law by not recusing himself in Lindsey Graham Appeal

[Rhiannon12866]

Meidas Network Host Ben Meiselas discusses how Clarence Thomas likely violated federal law and the United States Constitution Due Process Clause by not not recusing himself in Lindsey Graham’s emergency application to the Supreme Court to avoid testifying before the Fulton County Special Grand Jury. Federal law and the due process clause require recusal where there is an appearance that a Justice’s spouse has an interest in the outcome of a ruling. - Meidas Touch.

[SheltieLover]

1. What is the consequence?

[jimfields33]

2. Impeachment is only mechanism

[FBaggins]

3. He didn't

SCOTUS justices are themselves the only arbiter of whether they need to recuse in a specific scenario... but a temporary stay on an emergency appeal doesn't really present the question. Nor is there a reasonable connection between his spouse and Graham's case just because they both related to the last election. She hasn't been made a party to the lawsuit, nor is there any reason to think that she will be. More relevantly... the case before him isn't even that case... it's the appeal on whether or not Graham can be forced to testify. There's no plausible connection currently that could make her a party to that appeal.

[bluestarone]

5. Question here

Has a SC judge EVER done this before,after a UNANIMOUS decision from any court of appeals?

[FBaggins]

6. Sure. Loads of times

It's just a preliminary step while the parties file responses. After that point, it's the whole court conferring re: whether even to proceed.

My guess is that they won't. Someone cited a case yesterday where RBG did exactly the same thing and yet voted against allowing the case to proceed.

[bluestarone]

7. TY!

I just have a hard time with this, because of the unanimous appeals court decision.

[FBaggins]

9. Not just unanimous

Two of the three on the panel were Trump judges.

[Blues Heron]

4. They need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety - he should have recused

But he is a puke so of course he jumped in, giving the appearance of impropriety.

[Chainfire]

8. The lingering problem for some folks is that they are still expecting justice.

We are way past that.

[bluestarone]

10. Is there a process to FORCE the SC. to vote themselves some type of (how could this be done?)

Recusal system? Maybe a vote taken by all judges, if one should recuse him,her self? Could congress rule on this?

[Irish_Dem]

11. More of the quaint American gov't "honor system."

Except it doesn't work with people who are psychopaths and have no honor.

[Rhiannon12866]

12. And there are no repercussions for SCOTUS

They are not elected by the people, once appointed they have the job for life.

[Irish_Dem]

13. Yep. We are learning that high status people can commit crimes with no repercussions.

There are either no laws to stop them, or the laws in place are meaningless, no one will enforce them.