Ginni Thomas & Mark Meadows Texts

[Phi for All]

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/25/1088720571/ginni-thomas-tex-messages-mark-meadows-2020-election

Quote

The text messages raise ethical questions about whether Clarence Thomas should have recused himself last year in cases pertaining to the election and whether he should in the future.

What do you think about this? The justice has a voting record of weakening voting rights, and a slavish devotion to Republican agendas aimed at reducing the chances of fair elections. His wife is a conservative activist who sounds like she's gone down the QAnon rabbit hole, and doesn't care who the majority voted for. 

[StringJunky]

Short version: Clarence Thomas is a rotten apple and Republican stooge.

Longer version: Over the last dozen years I've been on here and taken an interest in SC and US politics, he is clearly the outlier to what constitutes a good SC judge. His wife's antics being out in the open kind of explains his past voting record.

I can't quite compute that he's black and yet holds this ideological position. Did he see a novel and fast track way to get where he is today in a Republican-leaning field not well-represented by minorities i.e. it's not about principles, but about personal advancement?

As far as his wife goes, it's not difficult to mistake her words for that of Marjorie Taylor Green. 

Edited March 30, 2022 by StringJunky

[MSC]

On 3/30/2022 at 6:14 AM, StringJunky said:

can't quite compute that he's black and yet holds this ideological position. Did he see a novel and fast track way to get where he is today in a Republican-leaning field not well-represented by minorities i.e. it's not about principles, but about personal advancement?

He also used to be a left leaning black nationalist. Not once in the 30+ years he has been an SC Judge, has he recused himself. Not a once. He won't anytime soon either. 

Thomas's story is a very confusing one. He'll make a bit more sense to you after I explain... but despite knowing his history, I still find who he is today perplexing and at times, positively aggravating to say the least. 

He was born in the 40s in Georgia. I forget the name of his birth town, I only know he loved it there. While he was still young, his family moved to Savannah Georgia. This was while things were still segregated. His first experience of racism, according to his own words, actually came from other black people. One of the things said of him by people there "he's so dark, if he was any blacker, he'd be blue.". Prior to the end of segregation, class divides in black communities was much more of a factor than it tends to be today. Within his all black community there, the darkness of his skin in comparison to others was a sign of being lower class within the black community while having a lighter skin color was usually perceived as being upper class.

Thomas fundamentally believes that white people are incapable of not being racist. He has often espoused support for racial separatist ideology. Believing that black people must be the leaders of their own communities. 

As a judge, he is a strict originalist when it comes to constitutional interpretation. In stark contrast to myself as a pragmatist and instrumentalist. 

It must be said, understanding Clarence Thomas is something that I don't think many people, including myself, are very good at. I'm only familiar with his upbringing and how influential that was in the formation of his belief system. However what I think influences him most today, is his relationship with his wife. Of which, I know little. 

I often wonder how we would answer the question were it put to him "How have black people benefitted from having you on the Supreme Court for 30 years?" 

I'll probably need to do more research now because this thread has repiqued my curiosity on this subject. I suppose I'll start with his wife's upbringing first.

On 3/29/2022 at 8:09 PM, Phi for All said:

What do you think about this? The justice has a voting record of weakening voting rights, and a slavish devotion to Republican agendas aimed at reducing the chances of fair elections. His wife is a conservative activist who sounds like she's gone down the QAnon rabbit hole, and doesn't care who the majority voted for. 

I think he should recuse himself. I don't believe he will though. Unfortunately the Supreme Court justices have sole discretion in deciding whether or not they can remain impartial and they customarily close ranks when it comes to that. It's an extremely difficult area of law to make the SC judicial guidelines legal requirements. If you or I were a lawyer, even the appearance of impropriety could have us disbarred. 

Unfortunately as it stands, failure to recuse yourself from cases where you may have a personal inability to remain impartial, is not a crime, the appearance of impropriety, is not a crime. Therefore you can't really impeach a SCOTUS judge for not recusing yourself. 

It's a tremendous oversight in the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances in the USA. I don't really know how it can be remedied without enough support in the legislative and executive branches to make changes to how a Supreme Court Judge can behave on the bench. 

Sometimes to me, it feels like the checks and balances system can sometimes lead to situations where the other branches cannot check and balance the other, without doing so in a way that may also require a check and balance on that. 

In my opinion, the least that could be done is the ending of lifetime appointments for SC judges. I feel that there has got to be a more democratic way and more public inclusion on who gets to wield so much power for such a long time. Thomas has been on the court for 30+ years, a lot of changes have taken place in that time. The voters who picked George Bush, who nominated Thomas, are not all the same voters today. 

Is there a good reason why the voters of today should not have any say in who sits in each of those SC seats presently? Not just for Thomas but for all the rest too? Even a public vote once a decade is better than someone having that much power well into senility. 

Edited April 1, 2022 by MSC

[StringJunky]

@MSC Thanks for your thoughts. He does seem to be a bit of an anomaly. Here's some of his views he has expessed on race:

https://justicethomas.com/justice-thomas-jurisprudence-on-racial-preferences/

Social engineering in order to aid minorities appears to be anthema to him. He has a strict notion of 'equal'. He appears to have an absolutist position on ethnic matters.

Edited April 1, 2022 by StringJunky

[iNow]

7 hours ago, MSC said:

It's a tremendous oversight in the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances in the USA. I don't really know how it can be remedied without enough support in the legislative and executive branches to make changes to how a Supreme Court Judge can behave on the bench. 

The legislature could act here, and they could do so in a way that remains respectful of separation of powers.

Specifically, they could write laws which mandate certain codes of ethics for the SCOTUS, and they could equally legislate authority into the hands of the Chief Justice for enforcing them.

As it stands right now, despite the fancy title, all the Chief Justice can do is ask nicely for other justices to recuse themselves. That’s it. He can basically say “please” and then runs out of options. Not a perfect solution, and comes with its own potential risks, but giving ethics guidelines and authors of enforcement to the Chief would help to more consistently address scenarios like the one being discussed here. 

All lower federal courts have these types of ethics rules and mechanisms for their enforcement. The SCOTUS is the only exception in terms of this recusal issue where each justice can decide for themselves. 

Not really on topic here, but I also support 18 year term limits for justices. The current lifetime duration of appointments leads to some needless problems and execution of strategies rooted in game theory more than being rooted in a desire to protect democracy. 

Edited April 1, 2022 by iNow

[MSC]

Quote

The report also cited the federal statute governing federal judicial recusals, 42 U.S.C. § 455. It still provides: “Any justice, judge or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality may reasonably be questioned.” By its terms, then, this law applies to Supreme Court justices, though there exists no means of enforcing it short of impeachment. (Those who claim the Supreme Court has no code of conduct may be overlooking this.) The statute goes on to state that a justice should recuse himself “[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding” or “[h]e knows that he ... or his spouse has [an] interest that could substantially be affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” (Emphasis added.)

- https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/03/30/impeach-supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-00021480

6 hours ago, iNow said:

All lower federal courts have these types of ethics rules and mechanisms for their enforcement. The SCOTUS is the only exception in terms of this recusal issue where each justice can decide for themselves. 

I highly recommend reading the rest of the text in the link. I highlighted and shared the portion that shares the statute related to the topic. I find it an enjoyable read, even if it was just an opinion piece. I'm just glad it referenced the statute tbh. 

I find it fascinating. If Thomas were a judge on any other court and something in regards to his wife came onto his docket, he would probably recuse himself. After reading this, even on the Supreme Court he would have an impossible task of convincing any but the most deluded that he would not need to recuse himself for that. I just don't see how you could argue away reasonable suspicions of impropriety there. 

The chief justice role is more so meant for an office of a senate court judge and for leading and presiding over hearings in the SC itself. That's why he presided over both of Trumps impeachment. Obviously I know you already know that Inow, I'm just trying to be thorough and descript for the sake of others reading who might be thinking the chief justice doesn't seem to have much of a real difference in roles than the other judges. After reading what we wrote. 

Why 18 year term limits though? Not disagreeing just wondered what the reasoning is on the number. All that drives my 10 year ideal is the uniformity of a new court for every decade.

SC judge: "I'm so impartial that I can decide on whether or not I can be impartial in a given case... because I'm impartial."

😆 

[TheVat]

I too have noticed that Thomas (like Scalia, his mentor) takes the Originalist view that constitutional amendments are unambiguous and cannot be seen as bending towards modern goals of social justice.  IOW, he has a genuine philosophical position that laws cannot repair past inequalities or lingering aftereffects.  For him, they only assert equality and then hope that its simplistic enforcement is enough.  Everyone has to supply their own bootstraps, so far as their own starting point.  I suspect Thomas is not a fan of Rawlsian ethics or any other system that suggests some may need a head start in order to compensate for the differentials in wombs born into.  (take me away now, syntax police!)

I can respect some nuances of his argument even if I disagree.  But the failure to recuse, when it does seem a clear violation of the USC statute, makes me think our legal system needs upgrades beyond the 18 or 10 year SCOTUS terms (the round number appeals to me) -- perhaps a less blunt tool than impeachment in Congress when conflicts of interest happen.  The sad part is that it's Congress that makes laws, and that body is so mired in partisanship that I cannot even imagine them crafting something enforceable.

And if Congress did, would some demagogue leap up and cry foul that the legislative branch was encroaching on that lofty independent judiciary?  Does a bear shit in the woods?

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I too have noticed that Thomas (like Scalia, his mentor) takes the Originalist view

It's easier to proceed with your own personal ideology and judicial philosophy when you can do so with the implicit sanction of the founding fathers... even better when you can personally interpret for yourself what the founders meant. It's a bit like believers who make up their own versions of god and his wishes to justify their behavior, except instead of white robes and mitered hats, the justices where black robes (and have moved away from the powder wigs). 

[MSC]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

It's easier to proceed with your own personal ideology and judicial philosophy when you can do so with the implicit sanction of the founding fathers... even better when you can personally interpret for yourself what the founders meant. It's a bit like believers who make up their own versions of god and his wishes to justify their behavior, except instead of white robes and mitered hats, the justices where black robes (and have moved away from the powder wigs). 

I can't help but wonder how the founding fathers would react to Thomas being on the Supreme Court at all. I've got a funny feeling that they would have nothing progressive to say about it whatsoever. I sincerely hope the irony of that is not lost on Thomas. If he were a true originalist, he'd never have sought the nomination in the first place. 

I believe the court needs a diverse set of voices, but I'm pretty sure the founding fathers had only old white men in mind for a Supreme Court justice seat when drafting the original constitution.

[iNow]

The same applies to women. Times change. Also, I misspelled wear. It seems my mind is beginning to wear, but I don’t know where. Perhaps a weir will help me retain the rest of my mental wares.

[mistermack]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

The same applies to women. Times change. Also, I misspelled wear. It seems my mind is beginning to wear, but I don’t know where. Perhaps a weir will help me retain the rest of my mental wares.

Ware not amused. Your mental wears look pretty warn out to me. 

[iNow]

I’m devastated. Your opinion means the whirled to me. 

[StringJunky]

10 hours ago, MSC said:

I can't help but wonder how the founding fathers would react to Thomas being on the Supreme Court at all. I've got a funny feeling that they would have nothing progressive to say about it whatsoever. I sincerely hope the irony of that is not lost on Thomas. If he were a true originalist, he'd never have sought the nomination in the first place. 

I believe the court needs a diverse set of voices, but I'm pretty sure the founding fathers had only old white men in mind for a Supreme Court justice seat when drafting the original constitution.

Jefferson and Washington had slaves. 

[MSC]

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Jefferson and Washington had slaves. 

Ahhh good. There is the bush I was beating around.

Literally for all we know, some of the slaves they owned were clarences ancestors.... although from what I've heard of Jefferson, he could be too. Think key and peele did a sketch about it too.

Personally, I sometimes just wonder whether or not Clarence Thomas uses judicial philosophical views held in bad faith as a bad faith smoke screen for blatant corruption. I mean the man can't even write a book without it becoming a conservative best seller. 

The scary thing to me; is that Thomas has had such an Influence on the court, that his methods of originalist interpretation are now being adopted by the other conservative justices and judges on other courts. A lot of his past students and mentees are a stones through away from an SC nomination themselves. Kavanaugh also utilizes a lot of it too. There is little doubt in my mind that unless judicial reform takes place, we'll be dealing with Thomas like justices and verdicts for quite awhile. That said, the continuation of more of that,  is also likely to bring on louder calls for reform and further erosion of public faith and trust in SCOTUS.