SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
ginni thomas
Ginni Thomas Thanked Group Fighting Ethics Reforms Spurred by Her Husband's Scandals
Leaked audio reveals that the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas praised a far-right group whose president later attacked Justice Elena Kagan as "treasonous."
Sep 04, 2024
Leaked audio published Wednesday by the investigative outlets ProPublica and Documented reveals that the wife of U.S. Supreme Court Clarence Thomas effusively thanked a far-right group fighting judicial ethics reform effort spurred in large part by revelations about her husband's undisclosed gifts from Republican billionaires.
During a private July 31 call with the organization's top donors, First Liberty Institute president and CEO Kelly Shackelford read aloud an email—some of it in all-caps—from Ginni Thomas hailing the group's opposition to court reforms that are broadly popular with the U.S. public.
"YOU GUYS HAVE FILLED THE SAILS OF MANY JUDGES. CAN I JUST TELL YOU, THANK YOU SO, SO, SO MUCH," Ginni Thomas, who was closely involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, wrote to the group, according to Shackelford.
"I cannot adequately express enough appreciation for you guys pulling into reacting to the Biden effort on the Supreme Court," Thomas wrote.
Later in the call, First Liberty's president attacked liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan as "treasonous" and "disloyal" for supporting an enforcement mechanism for the toothless ethics code that the high court unveiled under immense public pressure late last year.
Listen to the audio released by ProPublica and Documented:
The First Liberty Institute's donor call came days after Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) uncovered additional billionaire-funded private travel that Justice Thomas failed to disclose, the latest in a string of scandalous revelations that began with ProPublica reporting last year.
ProPublica estimates that Thomas—part of a right-wing Supreme Court supermajority that has overturned the constitutional right to abortion care and dramatically curtailed the power of federal regulatory agencies—has over the past three decades taken dozens of luxury vacations bankrolled by billionaire Harlan Crow and other GOP megadonors with interests before the court.
Survey data released shortly after ProPublica's first bombshell report in April 2023 found that a majority of U.S. voters at the time backed Supreme Court ethics reforms and wanted Thomas to resign from the nation's most powerful judicial body.
"Ginni Thomas isn't protecting the court. She's protecting her and her husband's bribes."
ProPublica noted that Shackelford held the First Liberty donor call "shortly after President Joe Biden had announced support for a slate of far-reaching Supreme Court changes," including term limits and a binding ethics code for justices.
"On the donor call, Shackelford voiced strong opposition to various court reform proposals, including the ones floated by Biden, as well as expanding the size of the court," the investigative outlets noted. "All of these proposals, Shackelford said, were part of 'a dangerous attempt to really destroy the court, the Supreme Court.' This effort was led by 'people in the progressive, extreme left' who were 'upset by just a few cases,' he said."
News of Ginni Thomas' support for First Liberty's efforts to combat Supreme Court ethics reforms was seen as further confirmation of the urgent need to overhaul the judicial body, whose favorability ratings are near historic lows.
"Ginni Thomas isn't protecting the court," progressive activist Melanie D'Arrigo wrote on social media. "She's protecting her and her husband's bribes."
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at Stand Up America, said in a statement Wednesday that "the First Couple of the Supreme Court—Clarence and Ginni Thomas—have once again reminded us why we need term limits and a binding code of ethics to restore faith in our nation’s highest court."
"In a brazen political move, Ginni Thomas praised right-wing advocates working to quash commonsense Supreme Court reforms," said Edkins. "Having spent countless hours on all-expense-paid vacations on superyachts paid for by right-wing billionaires with interests before the court, it's almost too on the nose that Ginni thanked these advocates."
"It's a shameless reminder that the First Couple, and the Supreme Court broadly, must be held accountable," he added. "Congress must act by passing term limits and a binding code of ethics. The American people deserve a Supreme Court free from corruption and political bias."
This story has been updated to include a statement from Stand Up America.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ocasio-Cortez Unveils Articles of Impeachment Against Alito, Thomas
"Congress has a legal, moral, and democratic obligation to impeach," said the New York Democrat.
Jul 10, 2024
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Wednesday introduced articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, citing "widely documented financial and personal entanglements" that have sparked a full-blown ethics crisis on the nation's highest judicial body.
"The unchecked corruption crisis on the Supreme Court has now spiraled into a constitutional crisis threatening American democracy writ large," Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said in a statement, arguing that their refusal to recuse from key cases in which they had glaring financial and personal conflicts of interest "constitutes a grave threat to American rule of law, the integrity of our democracy, and one of the clearest cases for which the tool of impeachment was designed."
The impeachment articles against Thomas accuse the justice of "failure to disclose financial income, gifts and reimbursements, property interests, liabilities, and transactions, among other information," as well as refusal to recuse from matters concerning his spouse's legal and financial interest in cases before the court.
The Alito articles accuse the justice of "refusal to recuse from cases in which he had a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party in cases before the court" and "failure to disclose financial income, gifts and reimbursements, property interests, liabilities, and transactions, among other information."
"Justice Thomas and Alito's repeated failure over decades to disclose that they received millions of dollars in gifts from individuals with business before the court is explicitly against the law," said the New York Democrat. "And their refusal to recuse from the specific matters and cases before the court in which their benefactors and spouses are implicated represents nothing less than a constitutional crisis. These failures alone would amount to a deep transgression worthy of standard removal in any lower court, and would disqualify any nominee to the highest court from confirmation in the first place."
Today, I introduced articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Read my full statement: https://t.co/is5EiLXw56 pic.twitter.com/AGGZhuZUm4
— Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@RepAOC) July 10, 2024
Ocasio-Cortez argued that "Congress has a legal, moral, and democratic obligation to impeach," a statement that reflects widespread alarm over the Supreme Court's ruling last week that current and former U.S. presidents are entitled to sweeping immunity for actions that fall within the scope of their official capacities.
Both Thomas and Alito faced—and rejected—calls to recuse from the case, titled Trump v. United States.
Demands for Alito's recusal came in the wake of news that two flags associated with the January 6, 2021 insurrection were flown at his family's properties in Virginia and New Jersey. Alito blamed his wife for the flags and dismissed calls to step away from the case as baseless.
Thomas, for his part, faced calls to recuse due to his wife's role in efforts to overturn President Joe Biden's 2020 election win.
Additionally, Alito and Thomas have been the focus of recent ProPublica reporting detailing the extent to which both justices have accepted vacations and other undisclosed gifts from right-wing billionaires with interests before the court.
In response to the corruption crisis, the Supreme Court late last year unveiled an ethics code with no enforcement mechanisms—further showing to critics that the justices could not be trusted to police themselves.
"Given the court's demonstrated inability to preserve its own legitimate conduct," Ocasio-Cortez said Wednesday, "it is incumbent upon Congress to contain the threat this poses to our democracy and the hundreds of millions of Americans harmed by the crisis of corruption unfurling within the court."
Only one Supreme Court justice has been successfully impeached in U.S. history, and Ocasio-Cortez's articles have no chance of getting through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
Advocates nevertheless celebrated the impeachment effort as a necessary step toward reining in the high court.
"The framers of our Constitution called on Congress specifically to hold judicial officers, including Supreme Court justices, accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors that compromise the integrity of the court," Courtney Hostetler, legal director at Free Speech For People, said in a statement. "We're proud to have worked with Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's office to help draft these articles and further the process of restoring the Supreme Court to a nonpartisan branch of the federal government."
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Few Words to Clarence and Ginni Thomas From Lady MacBeth in Hell
There is no day here, only night that never finds the light — without a glimmer to brighten our way, save for red. It is always dripping red for those like me, as it will be for you, Clarence Thomas, and you, too, Ginni, year after grisly year.
Jul 09, 2024
At least I had the courage to do the deed myself. That counts for something here on the other side of death, where I wait for you, Clarence Thomas, and your sharp-toothed wife Ginni, and someday the others whose decrees and rulings from afar have aided and abetted the mayhem and the massacres. Cowards all of you, and boring and petty to boot, at such a safe distance from the volleys, the salvos, the gunfire. Oh, the names I have had to learn — Sandy Hook and Columbine and Uvalde and so many hundreds more and even more after that, while you were careful to stay at a safe distance from the children as they fell.
Not me, not me.
In his play about treachery and murder in medieval Scotland, Shakespeare made sure that I would never be able to shirk facing my own ambition and malevolence. He never thought to spare me, just as I did not spare the lives of others — or, in the end, my own life for that matter.
When I egged on my husband to kill the king, the kinsman we were hosting at our castle, I was the one who had to clean up afterwards, smearing the guards who slept by their liege so they would be blamed, I was the one who covered up the crime and made my man Macbeth supreme in our land.
Is this a dagger which I see before me, the handle toward my hand?
And yes, the blood flowed onto me, too — out damned spot! Out, I say! — each gripping finger knowing that the red of that blood was staining more than the surface and the flesh, that it was staining what the soul would never forget. At least I owned the deed, the deaths, the dead. Who would have thought the old king had so much blood in him?
Come to us, Clarence and Ginni, here on this side of death. Step into this fog and filthy air where no water will clear us of our deeds, where all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten your hands or raze the written troubles of your souls.
At least I was never petty or boring. And, of course, what’s done is done. I risked the haunting and the madness and the blotches that would never come out. Something dire in me must have known that I was risking damnation, too.
That counts in this place where I have been tasked with dealing, night after thick night — there is no day here, only night that never finds the light — without a glimmer to brighten our way, save for red. It is always dripping red for those like me, as it will be for you, Clarence Thomas, and you, too, Ginni, year after grisly year. Years here are no more than infinite stretches of redness in the dark of infinite night, trickling second by second from each of the smoking wounds we inflicted. I have been tasked here, I who was once a queen, with waiting for you and your wife to join me on this journey.
Ginni Thomas, Lobbyist for Donald Trump and Extreme Election Denier, Gets What’s Coming to Her
Oh, I know something about wives and accomplices, partners in bed and partners in crime. I know something, Ginni, about goading the man on, to bed, to bed, to bed. I know about denying reality — an election in your world, something different in mine — and calling for an insurrection. I know how a woman (like a man) can stop the access and passage to remorse, and the greed, greed, greed that never stops.
Clarence and Ginni, listen to what awaits you.
It starts with the stench.
That is how you will be greeted by each of those children cut down so early, so early.
There will, in due course, be women and men aplenty as well, shot down in a harsh crimson carnage in their homes and in shops, on spattered streets and on spattered lawns. There will be time enough for you to meet them, one by one by one.
But first the children, the corpses of the children. They will be there for you to smell when I open the portals of this afterlife for you — for you and, someday, the five others like you in their black (or do I now mean scarlet?) robes. The boys and girls have been waiting patiently, their limbs riddled with the bullets you allowed, the ones you celebrated, each child and all of them together forecasting your future henceforth. Hollowed-out eyes and amputated stumps, collapsed lungs and gouged lips. I know, I know, you will try to look away — as you did on Earth, Clarence, as you did, too, Ginni. You were such weaklings, unwilling to face what you had done, letting others bear the burden, the keen knife of your sanctimonious words, refusing to accept the wounds you made. This time, you will not be able to look away from what you have wrought. Do not think the immunity you granted to a high-ranking criminal, making him king, will extend to you.
Though what you should really fear is not the gore, but something smaller and more dangerously devouring, not that easily dismissed.
A bullet, just one bullet, that is enough to slice the thread of life.
Think, then, of the 98 bullets you allowed to be fired automatically in seven seconds, think of the bump stocks you made legal, think of the sound and the fury of those never-ending shots resonating in the toil and trouble of your mind.
Who Sows Bullets Reaps a Whirlwind of Death
You will be squeezed into each lethal projectile and then into a second, a third, a fourth, and on, and on, and on. You will be in the barrel and dart through the air. You will be the metal that severs the artery, punctures the heart, rips, and carves, and explodes, and cracks, dashes the brain like that of a newborn babe, over and over and over again. And then, from within that body as it twitches in its last moments, you will witness and experience the sudden death of a child never given the grace of being garlanded with goodbyes, and then… and then, yet another child, one more boy, one more girl, like babes strangled in the cradle. And then and then and then, you will be inside the grieving parents and sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles, cousins and nephews, and inside those who were never born because the child who had done not the slightest harm, who would someday have been a father or a mother died too soon, way too soon. Yes, this is the endless sorrow you will inhabit from now on.
What you can no longer disavow, not in this place, not anymore is the life that girl or boy did not live, the one who wanted to plant trees, who wanted to dance, who dreamt of a world better than ours.
Clarence and Ginni, listen to what awaits you... It starts with the stench.
I know how you will feel because that is the sort of vision that drove me mad, that was what my hands forced me to see while I was still alive, the price I began to pay before I died. That is what broke my already broken heart, and that counts for something here.
I thought I could escape. I thought that, by turning the knife on myself, I could escape.
You will learn soon enough that no such escape is afforded us, not you, not me, to jump the life to come.
Not a trace of the milk of human kindness will be granted to those like you in this place where even lightning, thunder, and rain are clothed in red, where faces are torn to pieces that will drip on both of you in the bubbling cauldron of forever. No luxury trips this time around, Clarence, no weeks on a superyacht paid for by a corrupt billionaire, no immunity at all.
I can already hear you complaining, and you, too, Ginni. Of course, you will claim that you pulled no triggers, that the blood, spilled by others, had nothing to do with you, that guns don’t kill people, people do. Oh, such petty, boring platitudes.
Do not whine, Clarence. What’s done is done. What’s done cannot be undone. You are, in fact, lucky to have drawn me as your supervisor here in the halls of the hereafter.
Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall Join the Fray
You could have been assigned to Martin Luther King or Thurgood Marshall. There were others, so many others who had been damaged in such myriad ways by what you decreed, all of them so excited at the prospect of getting their hands (and more than their hands) on you, but it was those two, Thurgood and Martin, who petitioned the Supreme Law that rules this realm, asking to take charge of you when you crossed that river of justice — you who called yourself a Justice. They had plans for you. They had spent a rack of hours discussing each excruciating detail of what you deserved as a traitor to your kind. Even I shuddered when I listened to what they were concocting, those two men who had always shown such mercy while they were alive, who were forged in the winds of forgiveness. I dare not even mention what they wanted you to endure, you and your greedy Ginni, the doom they imagined for you.
So better you should stick with me, just as I am stuck with you, as we will be stuck with each other for all eternity. And do not think — not for a moment — that I am in any way fond of the thought of spending the eons ahead with you and your clawing spouse and the serpent under her tongue. And yet I refuse to be relieved of this task. This is my own punishment for my delinquencies, my horrors, my spots from hell — to devote every second from now on to you and Ginni, two cowards who did not themselves wield those guns from hell but let others do it for you, who did not taste the blood that would be shed, who feigned innocence with false hearts and false faces while wreaking havoc on so many people, including the voters of your land.
What Lies Ahead Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow
So come to me.
Come to me and sleep no more.
They are waiting for you in this blanket of darkness, the lives unlived, the worlds never experienced. Come to us, Clarence and Ginni, here on this side of death. Step into this fog and filthy air where no water will clear us of our deeds, where all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten your hands or raze the written troubles of your souls.
This is what you will inhabit. This is your fate, and the fate of so many others like you on the other side of death, tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, to the last syllable of recorded time.
Something wicked this way comes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Petition Demanding Clarence Thomas Recuse From Trump Immunity Case Nears 200K Goal
"Corruption on the Supreme Court has gotten out of control, and Justice Thomas is the poster child."
Apr 12, 2024
More than 165,000 people have signed a petition demanding that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself from a pending case on whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from criminal charges stemming from his attempt to overturn his 2020 loss.
The petition, organized by the progressive advocacy group MoveOn, urges Thomas to recuse from all cases related to the January 6, 2021 insurrection, including the high-stakes and closely watched Trump immunity case. Oral arguments in that case are scheduled for April 25.
MoveOn argues that Thomas should step away from the case because of the role his wife, Ginni, played in the right-wing effort to reverse the 2020 election results.
"From secret gifts from right-wing donors to weighing in on cases that his wife is connected to, Thomas has a longstanding history of conflicts of interest," the petition reads. "It's crucial that we raise the pressure now and demand that Justice Thomas recuse himself from this case immediately!"
Alexis Martinez, MoveOn's campaign director, said in a Friday statement that for the Supreme Court to consider January 6-related cases "with any impartiality, it's critical that justices with conflicts of interest recuse themselves."
"That applies first and foremost to Justice Clarence Thomas, whose own wife played a role in Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election," said Martinez. "Corruption on the Supreme Court has gotten out of control, and Justice Thomas is the poster child of why more work needs to be done to stop outside interests influencing the bench. Robust ethics reform must start with Thomas' recusal, and should continue with efforts to rebalance the court, impeachment of corrupt justices, and passing other reforms that restore the integrity of our judicial system."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Supreme Court Takes Trump Immunity Case, Clarence Thomas Urged to Recuse
Critics also suggested that by hearing the case, the justices are trying to "buy him time to retake the White House."
Feb 28, 2024
Immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to take former President Donald Trump's immunity case, Justice Clarence Thomas faced pressure to not participate due to his wife's involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
"Clarence Thomas must recuse himself from this case," asserted Stand Up America, echoing the progressive advocacy group's demand for another Trump case argued before the court earlier this month. Although the justice's wife, right-wing activist Ginni Thomas, was part of the push to stop the certification of the 2020 results, he has not recused himself from relevant cases.
The immunity case that the high court now plans to hear in late April stems from Trump's 2020 election interference, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection. Following a probe led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, Trump was indicted in August. The likely Republican presidential nominee faces 91 charges across four criminal cases, two related to the election.
In a statement welcoming the Supreme Court's move Wednesday, Trump doubled down on his presidential immunity argument. He had asked the justices to weigh in after an appellate panel ruled that he could not claim immunity in the federal election case, echoing a December decision by Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
After Chutkan rejected Trump's immunity claim, Smith asked the Supreme Court to skip the appeals process, but the justices declined. Them taking the case now means that Chutkan must wait to begin the trial, just months from the November election.
"The Supreme Court's decision to hear Trump's appeal and delay arguments until April is a deliberate attempt to postpone accountability for Trump's role in the January 6th attack on our country," declared Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey. "It also gives Trump a free pass on the campaign trail in the meantime. At a time when trust in the Supreme Court is at record lows, decisions like these only reinforce Americans' belief that Supreme Court justices are politicians in robes."
"Further raising concerns is Justice Thomas' continued refusal to recuse himself from this case and others related to the efforts to overthrow the 2020 election—efforts his wife participated in and pressured state officials to support," she said. "The American people deserve swift and transparent justice, not a protracted legal process that allows Trump to evade responsibility for his actions."
Take Back the Court Action Fund president Sarah Lipton-Lubet pointed out that "when it comes to helping corporations or restricting reproductive freedom, the Republican Supreme Court justices have shown they can work at breakneck speed."
"So why the holdup on this case?" she continued. "The obvious answer is that they know Trump's claims are dangerous and laughable, but they want to buy him time to retake the White House anyway."
While Trump didn't appoint Thomas, he did send three other right-wingers to the court: Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
This post has been updated with comment from former President Donald Trump and Mark Joseph Stern.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Clarence Thomas Has No Shame. But You Knew That.
Not recusing in a case such as this is unprecedented. It’s wrong. And it’s an appalling testament to how corrupted, how political, and how morally bankrupt the Roberts Court really is.
Feb 09, 2024
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas thinks he is above the law and that no ethical rules apply to him. And he wants you to know it.
That’s why he participated in the oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Thursday about Colorado removing Donald Trump from the ballot under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which expressly bars anyone who engages in insurrection from holding office.
Thomas went out of his way to ask the first question, though he rarely asks questions at oral arguments.
He shouldn’t be participating in this case–he knows no fair judge would. After all, his wife, Ginni, actively participated in trying to overthrow the 2020 election.
His doing so is an in-your-face rebuke to the millions of Americans who care about fair judges, fair courts, and the rule of law.
Thomas choosing to participate in cases involving Trump’s claims of being above the law, including a case involving his incitement of an insurrection against our nation and in disregard of our Constitution, is truly beyond the pale.
Ginni Thomas actively pushed Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows to help overturn the 2020 election results. She texted Meadows at least 29 times after the 2020 election with false claims about the election, touting conspiracy theories, and pushing for Trump not to concede. She continued to assert those debunked claims during the House January 6th Committee investigation. She also sent messages to John Eastman, a former Thomas clerk who was helping Trump subvert the election.
She was a VIP at the January 6 events on the National Mall where Trump incited the crowd to fight. She claims she left before the violent insurrection at the Capitol killed and injured police officers and threatened the lives of Vice President Mike Pence, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and other elected representatives and later disavowed the violence. But in a January 6th Facebook post ahead of the violence unleashed that day she wrote “LOVE MAGA people!!!!” She even texted Meadows a few days after the insurrection that she was “disgusted with the VP,” as the Washington Post documented. But she never expressed her disgust for Trump’s role in urging the armed crowd to blame Pence and stop Americans’ votes from being counted.
Ginni later claimed she never discusses politics with her husband, but she has also said she discusses everything with her “best friend”–Clarence Thomas. As the Washington Post noted:
“When Meadows wrote to Thomas on Nov. 24, the White House chief of staff invoked God to describe the effort to overturn the election. ‘This is a fight of good versus evil,’ Meadows wrote. ‘Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it.’
Thomas replied: ‘Thank you!! Needed that! This plus a conversation with my best friend just now… I will try to keep holding on. America is worth it!’”
It is a blatant and unbelievable lie that she never discusses politics with her husband. Just look at the political messages she sent to his law clerk listserv in support of Trump that were considered so inappropriate that some of those clerks even broke ranks to leak and speak to the press about her diatribes. She even apologized to the clerks for sharing her “lifelong passions” in those messages.
Clarence Thomas’ role in the Colorado case also makes it plain that Chief Justice John Roberts has done nothing to require that Thomas follow the basic ethical standards that apply to all other judges.
Late last year, as part of the Chief Justice’s PR spin to thwart Congress from adopting needed ethics reforms, Roberts announced a “code of ethics” that has supposedly been in effect for years. His announcement was timed for the eve of a vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee to approve subpoenas to Thomas’ billionaire benefactor and Nazi paraphernalia collector Harlan Crow and to Leonard Leo, who helped get Thomas confirmed and helped select the other Republicans appointed to the Supreme Court, including John Roberts. That investigation of Thomas is strongly supported by Americans, across party lines. His code was widely panned on arrival for being unenforceable and largely just window dressing.
But even Roberts’ uselessly unenforceable code states that a “Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.”
It also says recusal is warranted if a “Justice has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding…”
Does any reasonable person who is not a partisan for Trump really believe Thomas has no personal bias and no personal knowledge about the insurrection and his wife’s role in goading it on, while most Americans were spending endless hours with their spouses during the deadly Covid-19 pandemic?
Ginni Thomas was literally emailing legislators, like Shanna Bolick in Arizona and others in Wisconsin, to try to get them to overturn the votes of millions of Americans for Joe Biden to be president of the U.S.
Another part of the toothless Roberts’ code says recusal is warranted if “the Justice or the Justice’s spouse … is known … to be a party to the proceeding, … to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or … likely to be a material witness in the proceeding…”
Actually, federal law requires recusal whenever a judge knows his spouse has “any” interest substantially affected by the outcome of a case OR where his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Thomas’ purported impartiality is definitely reasonably in question, despite the assertions of his apologists like Mark Paoletta, the guy sitting between Thomas and Leonard Leo in the now famous commissioned painting with Harlan Crow and the cigars, which True North Research uncovered. Paoletta represented Ginni in her appearance before the January 6 committee, flacked vanity projects for Thomas, and assailed journalists who reported about Thomas’ corruption.
Despite Paoletta’s spin, Ginni Thomas was not only actively pushing Trump’s right-hand man to stop the election results, but she also texted Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and advisor in the White House, in the weeks between the election and the insurrection. And for years before the 2020 election, she was given insider influence and access about who should staff key Trump posts. She certainly has a stake in the case whose central tenet is how Trump engaged in weeks of planning to subvert the 2020 election results, culminating in the violence he incited on January 6.
Ginni was using her insider access to repeatedly push Trump’s top advisors, promoting the Big Lie as well as the big liars behind it like Rudy Guiliani and Sydney Powell. Ginni called on Meadows to “Unleash the Kraken,” the phrase used by Powell to insinuate she had evidence–evidence that never materialized–supporting the Big Lie as part of her efforts to justify Trump’s attempted coup. Powell has since pleaded guilty in Georgia for wrongfully interfering in the state’s election in order to aid Trump’s effort to stay in power.
Clarence Thomas should have recused himself from the Colorado case and other cases involving Trump–like the one where he was the sole dissent against giving Congress access to White House materials involving the insurrection. These materials contained Ginni’s texts to Meadows and Kushner.
Commentators are now busy speculating how the Court will rule in the Colorado case, though very few are noting that Thomas should have no role in this decision–with exceptions like MSNBC's Lawrence O’Donnell.
There are a lot of tea leaves being read about how the justices will vote based on the questions the judges on the high court posed in the oral argument. Just look at Brett Kavanaugh’s outlandish assertion that the 14th Amendment’s bar on insurrectionists is vague and would wrongly disenfranchise voters, even though what Trump was doing in inciting his mob to stop the count would have disenfranchised more than 80 million voters.
Then there’s Roberts’ purported concern about the practical effects of following the law. If only the Court had entertained concerns about the practical effect on the rights and health of Americans who can no longer legally access abortion care due to the right-wing faction’s willingness to impose their religious beliefs as binding law by overturning Roe v. Wade, discarding decades of legal precedent.
Some commentators are speculating that in order to avoid criticism by Trump supporters for following the command of the 14th amendment, the Supreme Court’s vote could be 6-3 or even 8-1 to allow Trump to remain on the ballot.
I fear that such an outcome will put the country on the path toward a civil war next winter if Trump were to win on the ballot but then be rightfully disqualified from having any of the votes for him count.
After all, a majority of Members of both Houses of Congress already found Trump engaged in insurrection as part of the second impeachment proceedings, even though there was not a super-majority of votes to convict him in the Senate. Fifty-seven U.S. Senators found him guilty as charged.
It matters what the Court rules, whether it will apply the Constitution as written to Trump. It matters whether these justices will follow the law–despite my doubts that they will. I think they will be cowards, if not partisans for Trump, and claim they are protecting our Constitution, though the text of the document clearly bars insurrectionists.
But Thomas should not be allowed to cast a vote in the case, regardless of the vote count on the Court. He should be disqualified. (In fact, he should be impeached for his corruption, even independent of his inappropriate decision to not recuse from this case.)
But what if, against all of the odds the partisan judges appointed by Republican presidents do not agree to side with their party and instead side with the patriotic Republican who brought the Colorado case.
What if it is a 5-4 decision, and Thomas casts the deciding vote, an illegitimate vote?
We’ve lived through that before, and it was in many ways a disaster for our country, our courts, and the world. That ruling led to the current 6-3 majority on the Court, after Bush won as an incumbent in 2004.
Back in 2000, Thomas, too, refused to recuse himself from the Bush v. Gore case.
He cast the deciding vote to stop the recount in Florida making George W. Bush president, even though Bush lost the popular vote and even though when the votes were ultimately counted Bush actually lost Florida, too.
Again, Thomas, by casting the tie-breaking vote in Bush v, Gore, ruled in a case that his wife had vested interest in. Ginni had been actively screening and recruiting appointees for the future Bush administration when she worked at the Heritage Foundation.
After Clarence Thomas failed to recuse himself, Ginni got promoted by the Heritage Foundation to be the Director of Executive Branch Relations, working with the Bush administration.
In that role, liaising with the administration her husband’s vote secured the presidency for, they were rewarded: she received nearly $1 million in compensation over the next seven years. (See chart below.)
Ginni became one of Heritage’s highest-paid non-board employees, and Clarence Thomas basked in her leadership role there: he was photographed at Heritage events touted as opportunities for its funders/members to meet officials.
(Even before those perks, Clarence Thomas had helped Heritage raise nearly $100 million as part of its fundraising campaign, which included–I kid you not–speeches about Thomas touting his good character.)
By the way, Ginni was not the only one rewarded for their role in Bush v. Gore. Roberts got rewarded, too, with a nomination to the D.C. Circuit and then promoted to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In essence, Thomas’ ethical failure in refusing to recuse secured Roberts’ his dream job on the Court–with the support of Leo, too.
Both Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett also volunteered to aid Bush in the Florida recount, and they too now sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, despite millions of Americans who opposed them.
Notably, Thomas also did not recuse himself in the Citizens United case, which unleashed a tsunami of dark money in elections. That was another 5-4 ruling where Thomas cast the tie-breaking vote, even though his billionaire buddy, Crow, had just staked his wife Ginni with a half million dollars for her new group called Liberty Central, which was designed to take advantage of that ruling to come. Thomas should have recused himself then if he had any judicial ethics at all–but he clearly does not.
Clarence Thomas’ corruption seems to have no limits–from private jets, to private school tuition for his nephew, to six-figure RVs, to luxury mega-yacht trips to Greece and New Zealand, to letting his mom live rent-free in a refurbished house now owned by Crow, and who knows what other perks–like thousand dollar bottles of wine–have yet to be reported on.
But the gall of Thomas choosing to participate in cases involving Trump’s claims of being above the law, including a case involving his incitement of an insurrection against our nation and in disregard of our Constitution, is truly beyond the pale.
It is unprecedented. It’s wrong. And it’s an appalling testament to how corrupted, how political, and how morally bankrupt the Roberts Court really is.
Key Clarence Thomas Timeline
After Clarence Thomas refused to recuse himself in the 5-4 Bush v. Gore case–even though his wife was screening resumes for GOP activists seeking jobs with Bush if he won–Ginni was promoted by the Heritage Foundation to be the Director of Executive Branch Relations, working with the Bush administration. She received nearly $1 million in compensation over the next seven years. She became one of Heritage’s highest-paid non-board employees, and Clarence Thomas was photographed at Heritage events that it touted as opportunities for its funders/members to meet officials.
1998:
Ginni’s compensation is unknown but less than $98,982; unclear when she started at Heritage.
Title: “Senior Fellow in Government Studies”
That year, Clarence Thomas helped Heritage raise money as part of the “Heritage 25: Leadership for America” tour where Thomas spoke about character. (Later, Thomas supported speaker fees.)
1999:
Ginni is paid $115,075, and she is the fifth highest-paid HF employee who is not on the board.
Title: “Senior Fellow in Government Studies”
By December 1999, Heritage’s Leadership for America campaign had raised more than $100 million, over $15 million more than its goal for the two-year fundraising campaign.
2000:
She is paid less than $125,756, and is not one of the five highest-paid non-board employees.
Title: “Senior Fellow in Government Studies”/activities: screening potential Bush appointees
Thomas was the keynote speaker of the Heritage-adjacent “Awakening” event at Sea Island, the event that preceded Thomas telling Rep. Cliff Stearns he was in debt, needed more money, and he might resign without more income. Heritage was intensely engaged in trying to set the policy agenda for a new administration if Bush were to win. Clarence Thomas refused to recuse even though Ginni is screening people for jobs in the Bush administration. Bush v. Gore is a 5-4 ruling.
2001:
She is paid $121,092, and she is the fifth highest-paid employee who is not on the board.
Promoted to: “Director of Executive Branch Relations”
Ginni gets promoted. Her new job was working with the administration her husband’s vote made
possible. Bush was inaugurated due to the 5-4 SCOTUS ruling, even though Gore would have won.
2002:
She is paid $128,458 and is the highest-paid employee who is not on the board.
Title: “Director of Executive Branch Relations”
2003:
She is paid $121,291; she is the second highest paid non-board employee. (Was the bump in 2002 a bonus?)
Title: “Director of Executive Branch Relations”
2004:
She is paid $131,316, and she is the highest-paid employee who is not on the board.
Title: “Director of Executive Branch Relations”
2005:
She is paid $144,245, and she is the highest-paid employee who is not on the board.
Title: “Director of Executive Branch Relations”
2006:
She is paid $144,193, and she is the highest-paid employee who is not on the board.
Title: “Director of Executive Branch Relations”
2007:
She is paid $145,544, and she is the fourth highest-paid employee who is not on the board.
Title: “Director of Executive Branch Relations”
2008:
Compensation unknown but less than $158,953 paid to the lowest of the top five employees.
TOTAL: Nearly $1.2 million (at least $1,166,289); almost one million after Bush v. Gore ($936,139).
Keep ReadingShow Less
Clarence Thomas Told He 'Must Recuse' in Trump 14th Amendment Case
“The American people deserve a fair and impartial review of Trump v. Anderson, free from any conflicts of interest."
Jan 05, 2024
A progressive advocacy group was among those immediately calling for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself after the U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday that it would hear arguments in the Colorado case seeking to bar former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state's 2024 presidential ballot due to his role in fomenting the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
Thomas is not one of the court's three Trump-appointed justices but has been repeatedly called to recuse himself in cases involving the events of January 6 due to the active role his wife, right-wing activist Ginni Thomas, played in the effort to stop the official certification of the 2020 election results.
"The American people deserve a fair and impartial review of Trump v. Anderson, free from any conflicts of interest," said Christina Harvey, Stand Up America's executive director, in a Friday statement referencing the name of the Colorado case.
"Justice Thomas' continued refusal to recuse himself from this case and others related to the efforts to overthrow the 2020 election—efforts his wife participated in and pressured state officials to support—raises questions about the integrity of the judicial process and the influence of political bias," Harvey said.
"As trust in the Supreme Court reaches new lows," she added, "decisions like these only reinforce Americans' belief that Supreme Court justices are politicians in robes. To begin to restore public confidence in our nation's highest court, Thomas must recuse himself."
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled last month that Trump should not be on the state's primary ballot because the 14th Amendment bars anyone who took an oath to the U.S. Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding office. As NBC News reports, "Among the novel legal questions presented by the case are whether the language applies to candidates for president and who gets to decide whether someone engaged in an insurrection."
U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a constitutional scholar and the lead Trump impeachment manager after the 2021 insurrection, called for Thomas' recusal during a televised interview on CNN Sunday.
A letter on Thursday signed by eight other House Democrats—led by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.)—also called on Thomas to recuse.
The letter addressed to Thomas says the justice must recuse "because your impartiality is reasonably questioned by substantial numbers of fair-minded members of the public, who believe your wife Virginia ('Ginni') Thomas' substantial involvement in the events leading up to the January 6 insurrection, and the financial incentive it presents for your household if President Trump is reelected, are disqualifying."
After making the detailed case for recusal, the letter from the lawmakers concludes:
Fewer than half of all Americans trust the Supreme Court, and that number will fall even lower if you rule in this case. A justice should not sit in judgment of his own wife's behavior, nor in judgment of his wife's professional and financial fortunes. Yet that is exactly what you would be doing should you refuse to recuse in this case. To protect the court's integrity and the legitimacy of its decision in this monumental case, you must recuse yourself.
In addition to the case in Colorado, Trump also this week appealed a decision by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, who determined that Trump's actions leading up to the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol make him ineligible for the ballot in that state.
That case could be impacted by what the Supreme Court decides in the Colorado case, but it could also run through the federal court system on its own path. The brief from the court released Friday said the Colorado arguments will be held on February 8.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Do the Honorable Thing': House Dems Urge Clarence Thomas to Recuse in Trump Case
"Your wife's activities raise serious questions about your ability to be or even to appear impartial in any cases before the Supreme Court involving the 2020 election and the January 6th insurrection," states a letter from lawmakers.
Dec 18, 2023
House Democrats on Monday called for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a pending case involving former President Donald Trump and the insurrection effort that took place on January 6, 2021.
A letter spearheaded by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) and signed by seven other Democrats cites the participation of Thomas' wife, Ginni Thomas, in the far-right scheme to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election results, in which Trump was soundly defeated by President Joe Biden, as reason enough for the Thomas to recuse himself from a question before the court about the former's president immunity from prosecution.
According to the letter:
We know through public reporting and through congressional investigations that your wife, Virginia ("Ginni") Thomas was intimately involved in Mr. Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and to obstruct its certification—the very conspiracies at issue in this case. Your wife not only attended the pro-Trump rally that preceded the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol, she was one of nine board members for a conservative political group that helped lead the "Stop the Steal" movement.
Special Counsel Jack Smith petitioned the court to grant certiorari after Trump's legal team moved to have the case against him thrown out under a claim that he is immune from prosecution due to the fact that he was the sitting president at the time of the alleged criminal conduct. To move the case forward in the lower courts, Smith asked the Supreme Court to rule on the question of claimed immunity.
With the petition before the nine-member court, the Democrats argue that Justice Thomas must not be allowed to weigh in on a case in which his wife played such an active and prominent role.
"Your wife's activities raise serious questions about your ability to be or even to appear impartial in any cases before the Supreme Court involving the 2020 election and the January 6th insurrection," the letter states.
In addition to Johnson, the letter was signed by Reps. Jamie Raskin (Md.), Madeleine Dean (Pa.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Gerald E. Connolly (Va.), Jasmine Crockett (Texas) and Dan Goldman (N.Y.).
After providing specific details of Ginni Thomas' involvement in the scheme to subvert the election, the letter suggests to Justice Thomas that he has little choice but to step aside in the case known as U.S. v. Trump.
"If you want to show the American people that the Supreme Court's recent Code of Conduct is worth more than the paper it is written on," it states, "you must do the honorable thing and recuse yourself from any decisions in the case of United States v. Trump."
Keep ReadingShow Less
AOC Leads Call for DOJ Probe of Clarence Thomas Over 'Blatant Disregard for Judicial Ethics'
"No one is above the law," the New York Democrat asserted. "For two decades, Justice Thomas failed to report millions in gifts."
Aug 11, 2023
A day after several House Democrats urged U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign following fresh reporting on undisclosed luxury vacations he accepted from wealthy Republican donors, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Friday led a letter calling on the Department of Justice to investigate the right-wing judge's failure to report "significant gifts" from billionaires "in defiance of his duty under federal law."
"For close to two decades, Justice Thomas repeatedly certified that his financial disclosures were 'accurate, true, and complete,' despite omitting millions of dollars in gifts," the office of Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. "Justices of the Supreme Court are required to file annual reports disclosing gifts, and the failure to do so carries a legal penalty under the Ethics of Government Act of 1978."
According to the letter—which was also signed by Democratic Reps. Jerry Nadler (N.Y.), Jamie Raskin (Md.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), and Ted Lieu (Calif.)—"Justice Thomas' consistent failure to disclose gifts and benefits from industry magnates and wealthy, politically active executives highlights a blatant disregard for judicial ethics as well as apparent legal violations."
The letter continues:
No individual, regardless of their position or stature, should be exempt from legal scrutiny for lawbreaking. The integrity of our judicial system hinges on the impartiality and transparency of its members. As a Supreme Court justice and high constitutional officer, Justice Thomas should be held to the highest standard, not the lowest—and he certainly shouldn't be allowed to violate federal law. Refusing to hold him accountable would set a dangerous precedent, undermining public trust in our institutions and raising legitimate questions about the equal application of laws in our nation.
ProPublica reported Thursday that Thomas has accepted at least 38 luxury vacations funded by ultrawealthy executives and Republican donors—some with business interests before the Supreme Court. The outlet noted that "while some of the hospitality, such as stays in personal homes, may not have required disclosure, Thomas appears to have violated the law by failing to disclose flights, yacht cruises, and expensive sports tickets."
Ocasio-Cortez and other congressional Democrats have previously called for Thomas' impeachment over ethical issues including his unsigned dissent in a case involving the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of former Republican President Donald Trump, who is facing federal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss. The justice's wife, GOP operative Ginni Thomas, allegedly lobbied state lawmakers in Arizona to help rig the election for Trump.
Critics have lamented that the Supreme Court—alone among the three co-equal branches of the federal government—is not subjected to a binding code of ethics. Last month, the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee advanced legislation led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) that would compel the high court to adopt an enforceable code of ethics. The measure advanced with no Republican support and is unlikely to pass the full Senate and GOP-controlled House.
ProPublica has also exposed a luxury fishing vacation in Alaska that another right-wing justice, Dobbs v. Jackson author Samuel Alito, accepted from a billionaire hedge fund manager who has repeatedly had business before the court.
Additionally, Politico's Heidi Przybyla reported earlier this year that Justice Neil Gorsuch, another member of the high court's conservative supermajority, in 2017 sold a property to the head of a law firm subsequently involved in over 20 cases before the court.
Last month, an Associated Press investigation also revealed that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor's staff "has often prodded public institutions that have hosted the justice to buy her memoir or children's books, works that have earned her at least $3.7 million since she joined the court in 2009."
Thomas and Alito have argued they don't have to disclose gifts they've received, even from people who have or have had cases before the Supreme Court. Critics derided Thomas for claiming that he was advised by colleagues to not report the largesse of billionaire GOP megadonor Harlan Crow and others from whom he accepted gifts.
"Thomas must resign and Congress must pass a binding code of ethics for Supreme Court justices."
Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts has rebuffed demands from congressional Democrats and others to investigate allegations of unethical and possibly illegal conduct by Thomas and Alito, while refusing an invitation to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee over the accusations.
Responding to the latest ProPublica reporting, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote Thursday on the social media site formerly known as Twitter that "Thomas' behavior is unconscionable."
"Americans deserve better from their highest court," Warren added. "We need binding ethics rules for SCOTUS now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Analysis Reveals How Billionaire GOP Megadonor Harlan Crow Gave Millions to Dark Money Groups
"Crow's secret political contributions and undisclosed gifts to Justice Thomas can be seen as two sides of the same coin, offering opportunities to exercise influence, while keeping the public in the dark about who is pulling the strings."
Jun 15, 2023
Harlan Crow, the billionaire GOP megadonor under scrutiny for lavishing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his relatives with high-dollar gifts, is also "deeply intertwined with the shadowy world of Republican dark money" and has given millions of dollars to secretive right-wing groups, a leading ethics watchdog reported Thursday.
In a new analysis, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) details how Crow "personally took park in the creation" of the dark money system that flourishes in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruling.
That landmark decision—in which Thomas sided with the 5-4 majority—affirmed that the First Amendment's free speech clause prohibits limits on independent expenditures on political campaigns by corporations, labor unions, nonprofit groups, and others.
"Crow's secret political contributions and undisclosed gifts to Justice Thomas can be seen as two sides of the same coin, offering opportunities to exercise influence, while keeping the public in the dark about who is pulling the strings," CREW's Adam Rappaport and Meghan Faulkner wrote in the analysis.
"In helping bankroll the Republican network of dark money groups following Citizens United, Crow has taken full advantage of the diminishing transparency laws around our politics—which Justice Thomas has been instrumental in dismantling," the pair added. "As a result, we will likely never know the true impact of Crow's political spending on our government and our elections."
According to the report:
Crow's political spending started long before Citizens United opened the floodgates for anonymous money in American elections in 2010. Between 1977 and 2009, Crow and his companies gave more than $2.4 million to federal candidates, parties, PACs, and other political entities. Since Citizens United, he's spent $13.8 million on federal politics, bringing his lifetime total of spending reported to the FEC to more than $16 million.
Some of Crow's earlier dark money contributions include a 2004 donation to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that ran ads dishonestly disparaging Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam war record, and funding for Liberty Central, a conservative advocacy group run by Ginni Thomas while her husband and other justices deliberated Citizens United.
More recently, Crow gave $2.5 million to the American Crossroads super PAC and $1.5 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund. Both groups are dedicated to electing Republican political candidates.
Crow—who has denied any wrongdoing regarding his relationship with Thomas, as has the justice—has been coy about his dark money contributions.
"I disclose what I'm required by law to disclose," he told The New York Times in 2011, "and I don't disclose what I'm not required to disclose."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy