This is an interesting development. House Democrats will hold a hearing today to review Supreme Court ethics in the wake of the scandal of Ginni Thomas texting Mark Meadows during the Capitol riot, and her husband, Clarence Thomas, not recusing himself on cases which involved the riot. The Hill:
“The Supreme Court has long operated as though it were above the law. But, Justice Clarence Thomas’ refusal to recuse himself from cases surrounding January 6th, despite his wife’s involvement, raises serious ethical — and legal — alarm bells,” said Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.), vice chair of the House Judiciary courts subcommittee.
“The need for strong, enforceable ethics laws is clearer than ever. We have to do more to hold the Court accountable and restore public trust through a binding code of ethics and recusal.” […]
Some in the GOP believe that with this hearing, Democrats are laying the groundwork for further action against him.
“Let’s be honest, this hearing is nothing more than step one in impeaching Justice Thomas,” a senior GOP aide told The Hill.
Ginni Thomas has been a regular presence in conservative activism circles for decades, but scrutiny of her activities escalated following a January New Yorker profile raising questions about whether her actions pose a conflict of interest to Justice Thomas.
In March, the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack revealed Thomas’s text messages to Meadows urging him to not let Trump concede the 2020 election, asserting without evidence that there was fraud in the election and expressing frustration that Republican members of Congress were not doing more to help overturn the results.
That further heightened outrage at Clarence Thomas, given that he could rule on cases about the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. A group of 24 House and Senate Democrats sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts and Thomas asking Thomas to recuse himself from such cases.
Others went further. Johnson called for Thomas’s resignation. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said that his failure to recuse himself from matters involving his wife could prompt more investigation and “serve as grounds for impeachment.”
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called Ginni Thomas a “proud contributor to a coup of our country” and renewed her call to institute a Code of Ethics for the Supreme Court.
If there is one axiom of law that is absolute, it is that a person may not sit as a judge on a case in which he is a party — or a wife or close relative is a party. This is pretty much a no brainer. For Thomas to refuse to recuse himself on these facts is unconscionable.
One thing seems true of current day conservatives, is that they will do and get away with whatever they please. Maybe they believe they have the courts rigged enough, where it won’t matter, even if someone attempts to hold them accountable. Hard and fast ethics rules would be great, but will the senate approve them, or are they not necessary?
Yes, they’re necessary but unless either A) the filibuster is eliminated or B) dems get a filibuster-proof majority, it is not happening. Conservatives only care about the rule of law when it can be used as a cudgel to beat others (i.e. p.o.c., women, LGBT, non-xtians…) with. When the rule of law is applied to their egregious crimes it is called “persecution” and they whine and beat their chests over the said “persecution”.
They’re aiming at extending the judicial code of ethics to cover SCOTUS, which has been on the honor system since forever and is failing due to Clarence and Ginni (and prior justices).
And other current justices.
You know, it’s so funny that you never hear conservatives hold their tongues when a “liberal” Justice has the slightest relationship to a pending case (like, they worked with someone who worked with someone who’s related to someone who once worked with someone who went to 4th grade summer camp with someone who had the same teacher as someone whose great-aunt’s fourth cousin, three times removed went to the same school as the great-great-great grandfather of an attorney who’s presenting a case before the court). When that happens, the right-wing DEMANDS the Justice recuse themselves and whip up their followers to complain to their Congresscritters and the Chief Justice demanding the recusal in the “name of justice and equality under the law.”
But when the wife of a sitting right-wing Justice is actually a direct participant in a case, the right-wing is quiet and, “The Justice will be completely impartial as the Court hears the case.”