The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[BlueK]

Any of you following this story about Clarence Thomas's wife? This is wild. She sent a ton of texts to Mark Meadows encouraging him to overturn the 2020 election. She is a full on MAGA/QAnon lunatic.

Some legal experts are now saying that CT should recuse himself from any case involving the 2020 election or aftermath. Can the other justices force this?

Nope. The Supreme Court is exempt from the existing ethics rules that apply to the lower courts where such a situation with a judge's spouse would force that judge to be recused on cases related to their spouse's business or political activity. Congress could do something probably but it wouldn't get 60 votes in the senate since the GOP would know it would affect Thomas. That said, none of the 2020 election cases have been close votes since Trump has no facts to support his garbage.

[frank ryan]

Nope. The Supreme Court is exempt from the existing ethics rules that apply to the lower courts where such a situation with a judge's spouse would force that judge to be recused on cases related to their spouse's business or political activity. Congress could do something probably but it wouldn't get 60 votes in the senate since the GOP would know it would affect Thomas. That said, none of the 2020 election cases have been close votes since Trump has no facts to support his garbage.

It's still not comforting. Thomas has long been an oddball and an activist judge.

[BlueK]

It's still not comforting. Thomas has long been an oddball and an activist judge.

GOP members of congress are already rushing to Thomas' defense. While that will play fine to about a third of the population, I don't think independents will agree with them that it's perfectly fine for Supreme Court justices to ignore ethics rules that apply to other judges and not recuse on cases directly related to their spouse's business and political activities. The House should immediately pass legislation to force the Supreme Court to adhere to the rules and put the pressure on the Senate to do the same. I don't think this is a political winner for the GOP to oppose, but it's worth it to get them all on the record at least.

[LVAllen]

The House should immediately pass legislation to force the Supreme Court to adhere to the rules and put the pressure on the Senate to do the same. I don't think this is a political winner for the GOP to oppose, but it's worth it to get them all on the record at least.

Separation of powers, coequal branch of government and all that. While I would certainly welcome Wheaton's Law ("Don't be a dick") codified into statue, I question whether Congress has the authority.

[Non Sequitur]

GOP members of congress are already rushing to Thomas' defense. While that will play fine to about a third of the population, I don't think independents will agree with them that it's perfectly fine for Supreme Court justices to ignore ethics rules that apply to other judges and not recuse on cases directly related to their spouse's business and political activities. The House should immediately pass legislation to force the Supreme Court to adhere to the rules and put the pressure on the Senate to do the same. I don't think this is a political winner for the GOP to oppose, but it's worth it to get them all on the record at least.

As much as I dislike Clarence Thomas, and as unprincipled as I believe he is, I don't want politicians deciding which justices are allowed to rule on which Supreme Court cases. Whenever Thomas refuses to recuse himself, which he won't, the press needs to report exactly how much money his household garnered from his wife's lobbying efforts. Put the corruption on display, but the keep the politicians out of it.

[All-American]

I wrote a paper once about the question of recusal, back when the topic du jour was whether Kagan should recuse because of favorable things she said about the Affordable Care Act. The problem with recusal at the level of the Supreme Court is that the Supreme Court is very much unlike the lower courts. At the Court of Appeals, if one judge has to recuse, you simply replace that judge with another one to fill out the panel. In theory the litigants should not be impacted; they were just as likely to draw the replacement judge as the one that was recusing. At the level of SCOTUS, by contrast, every case is heard by every Justice, so knocking out one Justice potentially has a significant impact on the outcome. (Which of course is exactly why they wanted Justice Kagan to recuse.)

That's not to say that Supreme Court justices can or should ignore ethics rules. But the considerations are much different for SCOTUS Justices than they are for lower court judges. It should take a lot more to require recusal of a Justice than of a district court or Court of Appeals judge.

I didn't think recusal was required for Kagan. By similar token I haven't seen anything yet that makes me think recusal would be required for Thomas. Or that we need to revisit recusal standards for SCOTUS Justices.

[Non Sequitur]

I wrote a paper once about the question of recusal, back when the topic du jour was whether Kagan should recuse because of favorable things she said about the Affordable Care Act. The problem with recusal at the level of the Supreme Court is that the Supreme Court is very much unlike the lower courts. At the Court of Appeals, if one judge has to recuse, you simply replace that judge with another one to fill out the panel. In theory the litigants should not be impacted; they were just as likely to draw the replacement judge as the one that was recusing. At the level of SCOTUS, by contrast, every case is heard by every Justice, so knocking out one Justice potentially has a significant impact on the outcome. (Which of course is exactly why they wanted Justice Kagan to recuse.)

That's not to say that Supreme Court justices can or should ignore ethics rules. But the considerations are much different for SCOTUS Justices than they are for lower court judges. It should take a lot more to require recusal of a Justice than of a district court or Court of Appeals judge.

I didn't think recusal was required for Kagan. By similar token I haven't seen anything yet that makes me think recusal would be required for Thomas. Or that we need to revisit recusal standards for SCOTUS Justices.

I agree with most of what you say, but Thomas was the sole dissenter in a case involving the turning over of records, some of which that were likely linked to his wife. That doesn't raise an eyebrow?

[All-American]

I agree with most of what you say, but Thomas was the sole dissenter in a case involving the turning over of records, some of which that were likely linked to his wife. That doesn't raise an eyebrow?

Eyebrows? Meh, maybe. But I don’t really think Justice Thomas is all that susceptible to outside pressure. I think he thinks what he thinks no matter what other people think.

[Commando]

It's still not comforting. Thomas has long been an oddball and an activist judge.

Thomas is the worst. He and Alito are far worse than either of Trump's picks.

[Bo Diddley]

I wrote a paper once about the question of recusal, back when the topic du jour was whether Kagan should recuse because of favorable things she said about the Affordable Care Act. The problem with recusal at the level of the Supreme Court is that the Supreme Court is very much unlike the lower courts. At the Court of Appeals, if one judge has to recuse, you simply replace that judge with another one to fill out the panel. In theory the litigants should not be impacted; they were just as likely to draw the replacement judge as the one that was recusing. At the level of SCOTUS, by contrast, every case is heard by every Justice, so knocking out one Justice potentially has a significant impact on the outcome. (Which of course is exactly why they wanted Justice Kagan to recuse.)

That's not to say that Supreme Court justices can or should ignore ethics rules. But the considerations are much different for SCOTUS Justices than they are for lower court judges. It should take a lot more to require recusal of a Justice than of a district court or Court of Appeals judge.

I didn't think recusal was required for Kagan. By similar token I haven't seen anything yet that makes me think recusal would be required for Thomas. Or that we need to revisit recusal standards for SCOTUS Justices.

This is well thought out. It's the direction I lean, but much more developed.

[Pelado]

This is well thought out. It's the direction I lean, but much more developed.

Yeah, yeah, me too. I had also been thinking along the same lines as AA, but his thoughts are higher than my thoughts.

[frank ryan]

This is well thought out. It's the direction I lean, but much more developed.

I think Thomas’ wife and her involvement with coup sympathizers is on a whole other level.

His wife has been outspoken on many controversial issues in the past but this is the first time I’ve felt I feel her behavior merited it.

[frank ryan]

It sounds like GinnI Thomas met regularly with Trump at the White House. Clarence Pubic-Hair-on-Coke Thomas absolutely needs to recuse himself from 1/6 related cases but he won't because he is an activist at heart.

[Non Sequitur]

The Senate Judiciary Committee splits 11-11 on party lines on the nomination of Ketanji Brown. It looks like the new normal is that future supreme court justices will only be approved when the President is a member of the Senate majority party. It's the fault of both sides of the aisle, but I think we're beyond the point where the problem can ever be fixed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The Senate Judiciary Committee splits 11-11 on party lines on the nomination of Ketanji Brown. It looks like the new normal is that future supreme court justices will only be approved when the President is a member of the Senate majority party. It's the fault of both sides of the aisle, but I think we're beyond the point where the problem can ever be fixed.

Ugh. This is depressing.