Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, conservative activist Virginia Thomas, arrive at the Heritage Foundation on October 21, 2021 in Washington, D.C.
(Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Oct 24, 2022
Progressives on Monday repeated calls for a federal investigation into U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, right-wing activist Ginni Thomas, after the judge unilaterally granted a request to shield Sen. Lindsey Graham from a subpoena regarding the 2020 election.
Thomas, who handles emergency requests filed in Georgia, temporarily blocked the subpoena, which was issued by the Fulton County district attorney and called on the South Carolina Republican senator to answer questions about phone calls he made to Georgia election officials after the election.
"This out of control Supreme Court must be reined in."
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled last week that Graham should be required to testify before a grand jury about the phone calls, in which the senator allegedly asked Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger if he could reject certain absentee ballots to secure a more favorable outcome for then-President Donald Trump.
Thomas has faced calls to recuse himself from all cases related to the 2020 election because his wife contacted White House officials and Republican lawmakers in at least two other states following the election, asking them to help reverse Trump's loss.
Thomas' Monday ruling is a temporary stay, and the Supreme Court may act in the case again later this week and may rule that Graham must testify.
Critics said, however, that the justice's ruling indicates the kind of conflict of interest that that he has been accused of as his wife's involvement in spreading the "Big Lie" that the election was "stolen" from Trump.
\u201cAlthough likely just a temporary order, this does tell us that none of the reporting over this year has led Thomas to recuse himself in cases involving the 2020 election and efforts to overturn the presidential election results, despite his wife\u2019s involvement in those efforts.\u201d— Chris \u201cSubscribe to Law Dork!\u201d Geidner (@Chris \u201cSubscribe to Law Dork!\u201d Geidner) 1666628429
"Clarence Thomas should not be ruling on any 2020 election-related case given his wife's behavior," said Emily C. Singer, a reporter at The American Independent. "Period. Full stop."
While Thomas' decision "doesn't really signal any cause for concern in terms of getting Sen. Graham before the Special Purpose Grand Jury eventually," added Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis, "the optics for the court are less than ideal to say the least."
\u201cThe stay itself doesn't really signal any cause for concern in terms of getting Senator Graham before the Special Purpose Grand Jury eventually, and Graham's claims to legislative immunity are outrageously broad, but the optics for the Court are less than ideal to say the least.\u201d— Anthony Michael Kreis (@Anthony Michael Kreis) 1666628574
The ruling sparked renewed outrage from groups that advocate for the expansion of the Supreme Court.
"This out of control Supreme Court must be reined in," said Demand Justice, which advocates for the expansion of the high court.
Grassroots group Stand Up America called the unilateral decision "an affront to justice and democracy."
"Once again, Justice Thomas is attempting to throw up a roadblock to investigations into the criminal conspiracy to overthrow the 2020 election," said Christina Harvey, the group's executive director. "If the court is to ever restore its credibility, it must be held to the same ethical standards as lower courts and four seats must be added to counterbalance the power of shameless, unethical partisans like Justice Thomas."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
ginni thomaspoliticsvirginia thomasclarence thomasus supreme courtdemocracyelection 2022lindsey grahamdemand justice
Progressives on Monday repeated calls for a federal investigation into U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, right-wing activist Ginni Thomas, after the judge unilaterally granted a request to shield Sen. Lindsey Graham from a subpoena regarding the 2020 election.
Thomas, who handles emergency requests filed in Georgia, temporarily blocked the subpoena, which was issued by the Fulton County district attorney and called on the South Carolina Republican senator to answer questions about phone calls he made to Georgia election officials after the election.
"This out of control Supreme Court must be reined in."
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled last week that Graham should be required to testify before a grand jury about the phone calls, in which the senator allegedly asked Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger if he could reject certain absentee ballots to secure a more favorable outcome for then-President Donald Trump.
Thomas has faced calls to recuse himself from all cases related to the 2020 election because his wife contacted White House officials and Republican lawmakers in at least two other states following the election, asking them to help reverse Trump's loss.
Thomas' Monday ruling is a temporary stay, and the Supreme Court may act in the case again later this week and may rule that Graham must testify.
Critics said, however, that the justice's ruling indicates the kind of conflict of interest that that he has been accused of as his wife's involvement in spreading the "Big Lie" that the election was "stolen" from Trump.
\u201cAlthough likely just a temporary order, this does tell us that none of the reporting over this year has led Thomas to recuse himself in cases involving the 2020 election and efforts to overturn the presidential election results, despite his wife\u2019s involvement in those efforts.\u201d— Chris \u201cSubscribe to Law Dork!\u201d Geidner (@Chris \u201cSubscribe to Law Dork!\u201d Geidner) 1666628429
"Clarence Thomas should not be ruling on any 2020 election-related case given his wife's behavior," said Emily C. Singer, a reporter at The American Independent. "Period. Full stop."
While Thomas' decision "doesn't really signal any cause for concern in terms of getting Sen. Graham before the Special Purpose Grand Jury eventually," added Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis, "the optics for the court are less than ideal to say the least."
\u201cThe stay itself doesn't really signal any cause for concern in terms of getting Senator Graham before the Special Purpose Grand Jury eventually, and Graham's claims to legislative immunity are outrageously broad, but the optics for the Court are less than ideal to say the least.\u201d— Anthony Michael Kreis (@Anthony Michael Kreis) 1666628574
The ruling sparked renewed outrage from groups that advocate for the expansion of the Supreme Court.
"This out of control Supreme Court must be reined in," said Demand Justice, which advocates for the expansion of the high court.
Grassroots group Stand Up America called the unilateral decision "an affront to justice and democracy."
"Once again, Justice Thomas is attempting to throw up a roadblock to investigations into the criminal conspiracy to overthrow the 2020 election," said Christina Harvey, the group's executive director. "If the court is to ever restore its credibility, it must be held to the same ethical standards as lower courts and four seats must be added to counterbalance the power of shameless, unethical partisans like Justice Thomas."
Progressives on Monday repeated calls for a federal investigation into U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, right-wing activist Ginni Thomas, after the judge unilaterally granted a request to shield Sen. Lindsey Graham from a subpoena regarding the 2020 election.
Thomas, who handles emergency requests filed in Georgia, temporarily blocked the subpoena, which was issued by the Fulton County district attorney and called on the South Carolina Republican senator to answer questions about phone calls he made to Georgia election officials after the election.
"This out of control Supreme Court must be reined in."
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled last week that Graham should be required to testify before a grand jury about the phone calls, in which the senator allegedly asked Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger if he could reject certain absentee ballots to secure a more favorable outcome for then-President Donald Trump.
Thomas has faced calls to recuse himself from all cases related to the 2020 election because his wife contacted White House officials and Republican lawmakers in at least two other states following the election, asking them to help reverse Trump's loss.
Thomas' Monday ruling is a temporary stay, and the Supreme Court may act in the case again later this week and may rule that Graham must testify.
Critics said, however, that the justice's ruling indicates the kind of conflict of interest that that he has been accused of as his wife's involvement in spreading the "Big Lie" that the election was "stolen" from Trump.
\u201cAlthough likely just a temporary order, this does tell us that none of the reporting over this year has led Thomas to recuse himself in cases involving the 2020 election and efforts to overturn the presidential election results, despite his wife\u2019s involvement in those efforts.\u201d— Chris \u201cSubscribe to Law Dork!\u201d Geidner (@Chris \u201cSubscribe to Law Dork!\u201d Geidner) 1666628429
"Clarence Thomas should not be ruling on any 2020 election-related case given his wife's behavior," said Emily C. Singer, a reporter at The American Independent. "Period. Full stop."
While Thomas' decision "doesn't really signal any cause for concern in terms of getting Sen. Graham before the Special Purpose Grand Jury eventually," added Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis, "the optics for the court are less than ideal to say the least."
\u201cThe stay itself doesn't really signal any cause for concern in terms of getting Senator Graham before the Special Purpose Grand Jury eventually, and Graham's claims to legislative immunity are outrageously broad, but the optics for the Court are less than ideal to say the least.\u201d— Anthony Michael Kreis (@Anthony Michael Kreis) 1666628574
The ruling sparked renewed outrage from groups that advocate for the expansion of the Supreme Court.
"This out of control Supreme Court must be reined in," said Demand Justice, which advocates for the expansion of the high court.
Grassroots group Stand Up America called the unilateral decision "an affront to justice and democracy."
"Once again, Justice Thomas is attempting to throw up a roadblock to investigations into the criminal conspiracy to overthrow the 2020 election," said Christina Harvey, the group's executive director. "If the court is to ever restore its credibility, it must be held to the same ethical standards as lower courts and four seats must be added to counterbalance the power of shameless, unethical partisans like Justice Thomas."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.