SCOTUS rules allow Clarence Thomas to decide for himself if wife's activism is "conflict of interest

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.alternet.org/2022/01/ginni-thomas-2656519811/

Critics of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his equally far-right wife, GOP activist Ginni Thomas, have recently been using the phrase “conflict of interest” in connection with Justice Thomas — arguing that it is wildly inappropriate for him to have a wife who has been promoting former President Donald Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election and expressed her solidarity with the “Stop the Steal” rally of January 6, 2021. Washington Post reporter Michael Kranish discusses these criticisms in an article published on January 31, stressing that under Supreme Court rules, it’s up to Justice Thomas to decide whether or not his wife’s activism is a conflict of interest.

“Ginni Thomas’s name stood out among the signatories of a December letter from conservative leaders, which blasted the work of the House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection as ‘overtly partisan political persecution,’” Kranish reports. “One month later, her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, took part in a case crucial to the same committee’s work: former President Donald Trump’s request to block the committee from getting White House records that were ordered released by President Biden and two lower courts.”

Kranish continues, “Thomas was the only justice to say he would grant Trump’s request. That vote has reignited fury among Justice Thomas’ critics, who say it illustrates a gaping hole in the Court’s rules: Justices essentially decide for themselves whether they have a conflict of interest, and Thomas has rarely made such a choice in his three decades on the Court.”

The journalist notes that Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, believes that “absolutely…. Clarence Thomas should have recused from the January 6 case.” But according to Kranish, deciding whether or not to recuse himself from a case is up to Justice Thomas himself.

*snip*

[Cha]

1. JHC.. how's the Fascist

Dictator trump loving Asshole gonna decide?

[Marthe48]

2. He'll sleep on it

n/t

[dchill]

9. He'll have a can of Coke - and THEN sleep on it.

[Torchlight]

11. Oh great, now I have an image of Just Thomas singing

"lemme sleep on it, baby, baby, lemme sleep on it, I'll give you an answer in the morning..."

[Hekate]

3. Wasn't it Scalia who was also allowed to decide if he'd recuse over some business matter?

Why is it always the right-wingers?

[Zeitghost]

12. It's every Justice

They all decide when they should not sit on a case.

[catrose]

4. Yeah, like Justice QuackQuack, who thought it fine that he rule on the cases of his hunting buds

Really stepped in it, founding fathers.

[BlueIdaho]

5. The entire fucking idea of a "Supreme Court"

Needs to be scrapped and replaced with something that fits better in a Democracy.

[MOMFUDSKI]

10. The court has lost

all credibility and whatever respect they may have ever had.

[BlueIdaho]

13. Agreed

Maybe I’m looking at the past through rose colored glasses but today’s Court is blatantly political and anything but blind where justice is concerned. Today’s Kangaroo Court will be Robert’s legacy and not worth continuing as part of the great American experiment.

[Emile]

6. It's time for Thomas to retire.

73 is too old for a conservative judge.

[Solly Mack]

7. Of course.

The presumption of integrity and all that.

Snort.

[JHB]

8. Thomas' disregard for conflicts of interest is what should have disqualified him for the SC...

...well before Anita Hill's name ever surfaced.

Another facet of Thomas’ career that was virtually ignored was the striking conflict-of-interest he faced in his short tenure on the appeals court (Nation, 9/23/91). Thomas ruled on a case involving Ralston Purina, helping to overturn a $10.4 million damage award against the company, even though the firm is largely owned by the family of Thomas’ close friend and patron, Sen. John Danforth. USA Today noted this conflict-of-interest, but the New York Times and Washington Post did not report the story.

https://fair.org/extra/clarence-the-credible/


Ralston Purina was founded by Danforth's grandfather. Thomas did not recuse himself from a lawsuit between Ralston Purina and ALPO Pertfoods Inc., and ruled in Purina's favor.
https://openjurist.org/913/f2d/958/alpo-petfoods-inc-v-ralston-purina-company