By
Concerns about Ginni Thomas’ far-right activism are not new, but the latest revelations have clearly taken simmering ethics questions to a new level. We’ve recently learned, among other things, that Thomas not only attended the pre-riot “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6, she also had a direct line to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, whom she urged to overturn the 2020 election.
In fact, as we discussed last week, through a series of texts that Meadows turned over to congressional investigators, Thomas effectively played the role of a right-wing lobbyist, sharing outlandish conspiracy theories while pressing the then-White House chief of staff to do everything possible to give power to the losing candidate. Some of her ideas were so radical, they overlapped with the theories espoused by adherents of the deranged QAnon delusion.
And while Ginni Thomas pressed the White House to reverse Trump’s defeat, and the White House pursued legal strategies to keep the losing candidate in power, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled on cases related to the 2020 election, indifferent to the conflicts created by his wife’s lobbying.
Indeed, when Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to help hide White House materials from the Jan. 6 committee, the justices turned away the case — though Clarence Thomas was alone in publicly acknowledging his dissent.
As NBC News reported, this has not gone unnoticed on Capitol Hill.
“Justice Thomas was the sole member of the Supreme Court who would have allowed records from Trump, Meadows, et al to be withheld from House Jan 6 Committee,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., tweeted Friday. “He did not explain his reasoning. We need answers.” ... “At the bare minimum, Justice Thomas needs to recuse himself from any case related to the January 6th investigation,” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said, “and should Donald Trump run again, any case related to the 2024 election.”
Yesterday, two Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee — New Jersey’s Cory Booker and Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar — voiced related concerns.
“The facts are clear here; this is unbelievable,” Klobuchar told ABC News. “You have the wife of a sitting Supreme Court justice advocating for an insurrection, advocating for overturning a legal election to the sitting president’s chief of staff and she also knows this election, these cases, are going to come before her husband. This is a textbook case for ... recusing him from these decisions.” She added, “[T]he entire integrity of the court is on the line here.”
On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Booker added, “[C]learly, Justice Thomas should have recused himself. That’s not even at question here. And I think that we also — more of a thorough investigation to better understand exactly what has happened with the judge’s wife.”
Any chance Senate Republicans, who’d likely be apoplectic if the ideological circumstances were reversed, might share at least some related concerns? Evidently not.
Ohio Sen. Rob Portman also appeared on “Meet the Press” and touted Clarence Thomas’ “integrity,” adding that he’s confident the justice would make responsible decisions. Florida Sen. Rick Scott said on Fox News, “I’ve watched Clarence Thomas for years and I’ve always seen him do the right thing.”
Putting aside the surface-level problems with such praise, there’s a deeper concern: Justices are responsible for deciding on their own whether recusals are necessary. In other words, under the status quo, everyone involved in the process simply has to hope that Thomas, to borrow Scott’s phrasing, does “the right thing.”
And if he makes the wrong call and further diminishes the integrity of the Supreme Court? Well, under GOP senators' reasoning, that would be a shame.
There's a reason Klobuchar added yesterday, "[T]his Supreme Court badly needs ethics rules."
Looking ahead, as new revelations continue to come to the fore — NBC News reported the other day on new communications in which Ginni Thomas demanded congressional Republicans do more to overturn the election, including calling on lawmakers to go “out in the streets” — Jan. 6 members are reportedly weighing whether to seek answers from the right-wing activist.
Watch this space.
Related: