How Ginni Thomas, Wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, Influences the Supreme Court

[Rexedgar]

I’m sorry a strong woman is so threatening to you.

What a flip-flop on your other posts regarding women.

 

[TheParser]

They're not chatting over their meatloaf and potatoes here, she is involved and they are both gaining financially and politically in having an unethical effect on Supreme Court rulings. Making light of this on your part is disingenuous.

Thank you for your point of view.

Have a nice weekend!

 

[Old 'N Chill]

What? No clown face?

You have a mirror for that.

 

[prometeus]

What kind of interest might that be? She seems to be an advocate for Conservative causes rather than having a financial interest that I can see. Perhaps you know more?

Is she getting paid for her advocacy? Doesn't "success" in her endeavors bring about more "business"?

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Is she getting paid for her advocacy? Doesn't "success" in her endeavors bring about more "business"?

I don’t know, I presume Mrs. Thomas is paid. It seems unlikely that Mrs Thomas has divergent opinions from Justice Thomas. I suppose the other discussion about Congress and their families dealing in individual stocks may yield stronger connections than with the Thomas’ family.

 

[prometeus]

I don’t know, I presume Mrs. Thomas is paid. It seems unlikely that Mrs Thomas has divergent opinions from Justice Thomas.

But that is not the standard that is applied.

I suppose the other discussion about Congress and their families dealing in individual stocks may yield stronger connections than with the Thomas’ family.

Yes probably so and should also be addressed. In the meantime the two are not related nor are mutually exclusive.

 

[Credence]

Mrs. Thomas has the right to discuss her opinions with Justice Thomas just as Dr. Biden has the right to discuss her opinions with President Biden.

I don't see how you can compare the two. Ginni Thomas is an activist and involved in many influential and controversial conservative groups. There are occasions when Clarence Thomas should have recused himself from cases his wife was involved in but unfortunately there are no ethical rules SCOTUS follows that other federal judges have to. I suppose better late than never that she is finally getting attention. I knew this years ago

Laws were proposed but never went anywhere:

SCOTUS needs a code of ethics
A code of ethics binds nearly every judge in America. The sole exceptions are the justices of the Supreme Court. Today, for example, no ethics rule prevents a justice from engaging in political activity, speaking at the fundraising event of a partisan organization, or joining a club that discriminates based on race, sex, religion, or national origin. Ethics rules for all other federal judges forbid these activities. This vacuum is unacceptable.
Quote:

Last Thursday, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) introduced the Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2013 to close the gap. It directs the justices to adopt a code of ethics. In a perfect world, the court would have done this without prompting. But Chief Justice John Roberts has resisted doing so. Murphy’s bill calls the question in the most deferential way possible. It does not write an ethics code for the court. It merely asks the court to write its own. Codes of ethics for judges fortify the administration of justice. They tell judges their ethical responsibilities and articulate high standards of conduct to which they should aspire. They assure litigants that a judge before whom they appear is committed to fairness and impartiality. They require judges to conduct their personal and professional lives in a manner that fosters respect for the courts. In his 2011 year-end report on the federal judiciary, Roberts said the Supreme Court did not have to adopt a code of ethics because the justices already “consult” the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which governs other federal judges. But there is an obvious difference between committing to abide by a code of ethics and consulting a code that a justice is free to disregard. Skeptics have argued that it would be an empty gesture for the Supreme Court to adopt a code because there is no workable way to enforce compliance. But the pledge itself has great value. Just as the public rightly expects judges to follow their oaths of office, it will also assume that a justice who vows to abide by ethics rules that the court itself adopted will do so. The chief justice has said that constitutional limits on congressional power to regulate the Supreme Court are largely untested. But the U.S. Constitution delegates to Congress the powers to regulate the court’s appellate jurisdiction and to make laws necessary and proper for “carrying into execution” all powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States. Advocates of original intent might note that the founding generation interpreted those powers broadly to permit Congress to regulate the size of the Supreme Court, where, when and how often the court meets, how many justices constitute a quorum, and the duties of the justices themselves — including a duty to “ride circuit” and hear cases as trial judges. Legislation requiring the court to write its own code of ethics falls well within this congressional power. In any event, it would be a mistake for the court to view the Murphy bill as a challenge to its power. It is rather an invitation. No rule is thrust on the justices. Under the Murphy bill, the justices are asked to start with the code governing other federal judges, but are then free to make “any amendments or modifications” they deem “appropriate.” A response that says, in effect, “We won’t do it because you can’t make us” will hurt the court and the rule of law. So will ignoring the mandate. This is not a partisan issue. Judges appointed by presidents of both parties confront ethical dilemmas. Codes of judicial conduct proliferated in the Watergate era amid pervasive suspicion of government, which has not dissipated in the ensuing 40 years. It would be unfortunate if the only judges in the United States who see no need for a code of ethics were those on the nation’s most powerful tribunal. It is time for the Supreme Court to take the need for an ethics code seriously.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/...-ethics-095301

 

[Credence]

Is Ginni Thomas a Threat to the Supreme Court?

Behind closed doors, Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife is working with many groups directly involved in controversial cases before the Court.

Quote:

The claim that the Justices’ opinions are politically neutral is becoming increasingly hard to accept, especially from Thomas, whose wife, Virginia (Ginni) Thomas, is a vocal right-wing activist. She has declared that America is in existential danger because of the “deep state” and the “fascist left,” which includes “transsexual fascists.” Thomas, a lawyer who runs a small political-lobbying firm, Liberty Consulting, has become a prominent member of various hard-line groups. Ginni Thomas’s political activism has caused controversy for years. For the most part, it has been dismissed as the harmless action of an independent spouse. But now the Court appears likely to secure victories for her allies in a number of highly polarizing cases—on abortion, affirmative action, and gun rights. Many Americans first became aware of Ginni Thomas’s activism on January 6, 2021. That morning, before the Stop the Steal rally in Washington, D.C., turned into an assault on the Capitol resulting in the deaths of at least five people, she cheered on the supporters of President Donald Trump who had gathered to overturn Biden’s election. In a Facebook post that went viral, she linked to a news item about the protest, writing, “LOVE MAGA people!!!!” Shortly afterward, she posted about Ronald Reagan’s famous “A Time for Choosing” speech. Her next status update said, “GOD BLESS EACH OF YOU STANDING UP or PRAYING.” Two days after the insurrection, she added a disclaimer to her feed, noting that she’d written the posts “before violence in US Capitol.” (The posts are no longer public.)

Quote:

For lawyers involved in cases before the Supreme Court, it can be deeply disturbing to know that Ginni Thomas is an additional opponent. In 2019, David Dinielli, the visiting lecturer at Yale Law School, was a deputy legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which had submitted an amicus brief in a gay-rights case before the Court. He told me he was acutely aware that Ginni Thomas and other members of the Council for National Policy loathed the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks right-wing hate groups. In 2017, C.N.P. Action directed its members to “commit to issuing one new post on Facebook and Twitter each week about the Southern Poverty Law Center to discredit them.” In Thomas’s leaked 2018 speech to the Council for National Policy, she denounced the S.P.L.C. for calling the Family Research Council—which is militantly opposed to L.G.B.T.Q. rights—a hate group. For Dinielli, the idea that a Justice’s spouse belonged to a group that had urged its members to repeatedly attack his organization was “counter to everything you’d expect if you want to get a fair shake” before the Court. He explained, “These activities aren’t just political. They’re aimed at raising up or denigrating actors specifically in front of the Supreme Court. She’s one step away from holding up a sign in front of her husband saying ‘This person is a pedophile.’ ” Dinielli went on, “The Justices sit literally above where the lawyers are. For these people to do the job they were tasked with, they have to maintain that level. But this degrades it, mocks it, and threatens it.” He warned, “Since the Court doesn’t have an army, it relies on how it behaves to command respect. Once the veneer cracks, it’s very hard to get it back.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...-supreme-court

 

[Credence]

Clarence Thomas’ wife is probably about to go through some things

For someone who purportedly had absolutely nothing to do with last year’s insurrection on the U.S. Capitol, Ginni Thomas, married to Justice Clarence Thomas, sure seems to find herself at the center of a lot of news reports about the attack.

Quote:

The far-right activist and noted homophobe made headlines last year when she took to Facebook on the morning of January 6, 2021 to voice her support for “MAGA people” rallying in D.C then later edited the post to say she wasn’t referring to the domestic terrorists who stormed the building, trashed the halls, and shit all over the floors. A month later, she made headlines again when an email she sent to all of her husband’s clerks leaked to the press. In it, she apologized for whatever role she played in the deadly riots and begged them for forgiveness. Related: Clarence Thomas’ wife apologizes for praising insurrectionists in leaked, possibly drunk email Now, she’s making headlines yet again, this time for signing onto a letter saying 11 Oath Keepers who were arrested for seditious conspiracy “have done nothing wrong.” The letter, which was also signed by Tony Perkins, head of the anti-LGBTQ hate group Family Research Council, plus several other antigay extremists, rails against Rep. Liz Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who both serve on the January 6 committee, for taking part in an “overtly partisan political persecution that brings disrespect to our country’s rule of law, legal harassment to private citizens who have done nothing wrong, and which demeans the standing of the House.” Reporter Mark Joseph Stern shared the letter, which was published to the Conservative Action Project’s blog last month, on Twitter this morning. Mark Joseph Stern@mjs_DC I missed this in December: Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, signed a letter to Kevin McCarthy accusing the Jan. 6 committee of engaging in "political harassment," "demagoguery," and "overtly partisan political persecution." http://conservativeactionproject.com/conservative-l Mark Joseph Stern@mjs_DC Replying to @mjs_DC The letter signed by Ginni Thomas urges McCarthy to revoke Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger's membership in the GOP conference, claiming that both representatives are trying "to undermine the privacy and due process of their fellow Republicans." http://conservativeactionproject.com/conservative-leaders-remove-cheney-and-kinzinger-from-house-republican-conference/ Mark Joseph Stern@mjs_DC Notably, the letter signed by Ginni Thomas claims that the Jan. 6 committee's subpoenas have no "valid legislative end." Trump v. Thompson—which is before the Supreme Court *right now*—asks the justices to decide ... whether these subpoenas have a valid legislative end. I fear these tweets will revive a notorious conspiracy theory, so let me state this now: To the best of my knowledge, Ginni Thomas did not help organize any events on Jan. 6 or finance the day's activities.

https://www.queerty.com/clarence-tho...hings-20220118

 

[Credence]

laws were proposed but never went anywhere:

SCOTUS needs a code of ethics

A code of ethics binds nearly every judge in America. The sole exceptions are the justices of the Supreme Court. Today, for example, no ethics rule prevents a justice from engaging in political activity, speaking at the fundraising event of a partisan organization, or joining a club that discriminates based on race, sex, religion, or national origin. Ethics rules for all other federal judges forbid these activities. This vacuum is unacceptable.
Quote:

Last Thursday, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) introduced the Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2013 to close the gap. It directs the justices to adopt a code of ethics. In a perfect world, the court would have done this without prompting. But Chief Justice John Roberts has resisted doing so. Murphy’s bill calls the question in the most deferential way possible. It does not write an ethics code for the court. It merely asks the court to write its own. Codes of ethics for judges fortify the administration of justice. They tell judges their ethical responsibilities and articulate high standards of conduct to which they should aspire. They assure litigants that a judge before whom they appear is committed to fairness and impartiality. They require judges to conduct their personal and professional lives in a manner that fosters respect for the courts. In his 2011 year-end report on the federal judiciary, Roberts said the Supreme Court did not have to adopt a code of ethics because the justices already “consult” the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which governs other federal judges. But there is an obvious difference between committing to abide by a code of ethics and consulting a code that a justice is free to disregard. Skeptics have argued that it would be an empty gesture for the Supreme Court to adopt a code because there is no workable way to enforce compliance. But the pledge itself has great value. Just as the public rightly expects judges to follow their oaths of office, it will also assume that a justice who vows to abide by ethics rules that the court itself adopted will do so. The chief justice has said that constitutional limits on congressional power to regulate the Supreme Court are largely untested. But the U.S. Constitution delegates to Congress the powers to regulate the court’s appellate jurisdiction and to make laws necessary and proper for “carrying into execution” all powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States. Advocates of original intent might note that the founding generation interpreted those powers broadly to permit Congress to regulate the size of the Supreme Court, where, when and how often the court meets, how many justices constitute a quorum, and the duties of the justices themselves — including a duty to “ride circuit” and hear cases as trial judges. Legislation requiring the court to write its own code of ethics falls well within this congressional power. In any event, it would be a mistake for the court to view the Murphy bill as a challenge to its power. It is rather an invitation. No rule is thrust on the justices. Under the Murphy bill, the justices are asked to start with the code governing other federal judges, but are then free to make “any amendments or modifications” they deem “appropriate.” A response that says, in effect, “We won’t do it because you can’t make us” will hurt the court and the rule of law. So will ignoring the mandate. This is not a partisan issue. Judges appointed by presidents of both parties confront ethical dilemmas. Codes of judicial conduct proliferated in the Watergate era amid pervasive suspicion of government, which has not dissipated in the ensuing 40 years. It would be unfortunate if the only judges in the United States who see no need for a code of ethics were those on the nation’s most powerful tribunal. It is time for the Supreme Court to take the need for an ethics code seriously.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/...-ethics-095301

 

[Credence]

The wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is trying to purge the White House of dissenters. She's been boosting Trump for years.

Snipped

Quote:

Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is a key part of the conservative associates advising President Donald Trump's administration on how to rid departments of "disloyal" officials. Axios first reported that a "well-connected network of conservative activists" is drawing up lists of officials they perceive to be anti-Trump, who are then flagged to be fired and replaced with Trump loyalists. The report noted that the suggestions aid Trump's paranoia that departments across his government are filled with "snakes," a concern that has apparently only worsened since he faced an impeachment trial. Thomas was personally involved in compiling memos to argue against the hirings of various top White House aides, National Security Council officials, according to Axios. Also reported to have been on the chopping block was Sean Doocey, the former head of the White House personnel office before he was replaced by 29-year-old John McEntee. McEntee's hiring raised eyebrows as he previously started on Trump's small team early in his presidential campaign and returned to the administration after he was fired in 2018 amid an investigation into allegations of financial crimes. Thomas has worked as a conservative activist for decades Reports of Thomas helping weed out people not loyal to Trump across the administration is the latest chapter in her public image as a staunch conservative activist.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ginn...oyalist-2020-2

 

[JMR]

I read the story and it talks about her views but didn’t indicate how there could be a conflict of interest for Justice Thomas. Since all you can suggest is the very vague “read up a bit,” I’ll trouble you no further looking for clarification.

She works as an advisor and activist for people and associations that bring issues before the court. Do you not think that her marriage to a justice is seen as positive in hiring her services? Thomas should be recusing himself from any case that his wife has been involved with.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

But that is not the standard that is applied.

Yes probably so and should also be addressed. In the meantime the two are not related nor are mutually exclusive.

Would you please share the standard? Seems like a stretch to keep spouses from having strong opinions, which would probably be better if they didn't express them.

 

[Rexedgar]

Ethics are so last century …………

 

[AliHajiSheik]

She works as an advisor and activist for people and associations that bring issues before the court. Do you not think that her marriage to a justice is seen as positive in hiring her services? Thomas should be recusing himself from any case that his wife has been involved with.

Groups can't just bring up a cast to the Supreme Court because they want it to, typically, only a case on appeal can be brought before the court. As for Mrs. Thomas and her qualifications, I don't know her qualifications or whether any Supreme Court spouse might express their opinion to their familial Justice on any case before the Court. I found a side with some old data indicating that the two most frequent explanations for recusals have been Previous Work and Stock Ownership link

 

[JMR]

Groups can't just bring up a cast to the Supreme Court because they want it to, typically, only a case on appeal can be brought before the court. As for Mrs. Thomas and her qualifications, I don't know her qualifications or whether any Supreme Court spouse might express their opinion to their familial Justice on any case before the Court. I found a side with some old data indicating that the two most frequent explanations for recusals have been Previous Work and Stock Ownership link

I believe it is required at all levels of federal courts, except the Supreme Court, that justices recuse themselves in cases like the ones Mrs. Thomas is involved with. There have been attempts in the past to make that also required at SC, but for some reason that has not yet occurred.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

I believe it is required at all levels of federal courts, except the Supreme Court, that justices recuse themselves in cases like the ones Mrs. Thomas is involved with. There have been attempts in the past to make that also required at SC, but for some reason that has not yet occurred.

I can't find an example of any case that Mrs Thoams was involved. After reading up on here, she seems to not be shy about expressing an opinion on topics, but actually involved with a case? If she is standing in front of the Supreme Court arguing a case, no question, he should recuse.

 

[prometeus]

Typical conservative integrity.

 

[JMR]

I can't find an example of any case that Mrs Thoams was involved. After reading up on here, she seems to not be shy about expressing an opinion on topics, but actually involved with a case? If she is standing in front of the Supreme Court arguing a case, no question, he should recuse.

So your standard is that she should actually be the one arguing the case? She is hired to help her clients argue their cases.

For example:

In a new report for the New Yorker, Jane Mayer revealed Ginni Thomas’s lobbying firm Liberty Consulting had been paid more than $200,000 by the conservative pressure group Center for Security Policy in 2017 and 2018 that had filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the Trump administration’s Muslim travel ban.

Justice Thomas voted to uphold the ban twice.

 

[prometeus]

Would you please share the standard? Seems like a stretch to keep spouses from having strong opinions, which would probably be better if they didn't express them.

Seriously? You really believe that it is all about a wife's opinion?
Well, it is not about having an opinion, but rather benefitting or profiting from a SCOTUS decision.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

So your standard is that she should actually be the one arguing the case? She is hired to help her clients argue their cases.

For example:

I set no standard, and a wise person several years ago pointed out to me to avoid beginning a sentence with "So" because it just meant that I was trying to impose my opinion on others just to try to win debate points.

Again, it appears in your case referenced that the group she is/was with at the time was expressing their opinion.

Amicus Curiae​

Latin for "friend of the court." Plural is "amici curiae." Frequently, a person or group who is not a party to an action, but has a strong interest in the matter, will petition the court for permission to submit a brief in the action with the intent of influencing the court's decision. Such briefs are called "amicus briefs." Link​

 

[JMR]

I set no standard, and a wise person several years ago pointed out to me to avoid beginning a sentence with "So" because it just meant that I was trying to impose my opinion on others just to try to win debate points.

Again, it appears in your case referenced that the group she is/was with at the time was expressing their opinion.

Amicus Curiae​

Latin for "friend of the court." Plural is "amici curiae." Frequently, a person or group who is not a party to an action, but has a strong interest in the matter, will petition the court for permission to submit a brief in the action with the intent of influencing the court's decision. Such briefs are called "amicus briefs." Link​

You quite clearly stated "If she was standing in front of the Supreme Court arguing a case" he should recuse himself. So.....

Yes, she was hired to help them frame their brief, to be considered in part by her husband, who coincidentally, lol, decided in their favor.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Now you are using "so" to indicate the only circumstance I would agree with recusal. Perhaps you can explain why that isn't dishonest on your part? We are discussing the in between situations presumably to determine whether a line was crossed objectively.

"Yes, she was hired to help them frame their brief". First, who is "them"? What case before the Supreme Court did Mrs Thomas help them "frame their brief"? Are you referring to Amicus Briefs or cases under appeal? I see nothing in your article that indicates either way.

 

[JMR]

Now you are using "so" to indicate the only circumstance I would agree with recusal. Perhaps you can explain why that isn't dishonest on your part? We are discussing the in between situations presumably to determine whether a line was crossed objectively.

"Yes, she was hired to help them frame their brief". First, who is "them"? What case before the Supreme Court did Mrs Thomas help them "frame their brief"? Are you referring to Amicus Briefs or cases under appeal? I see nothing in your article that indicates either way.

Is it dishonest on your part to have ignored that I asked a question regarding your stated standard? You can search for all the in between situations you please, the fact remains that this situation is addressed quite clearly at all other levels of courtrooms. Jurists are required to recuse themselves.

There are many articles, and many have been posted on this thread, if you are interested.

Another question for you? Do you think people who hire lobbyists assume the person they are hiring has some influence?
Or is it random?

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Is it dishonest on your part to have ignored that I asked a question regarding your stated standard? You can search for all the in between situations you please, the fact remains that this situation is addressed quite clearly at all other levels of courtrooms. Jurists are required to recuse themselves.

There are many articles, and many have been posted on this thread, if you are interested.

Another question for you? Do you think people who hire lobbyists assume the person they are hiring has some influence?
Or is it random?

You did not ask me for my standard. I specifically answered that I had no standard. I’m trying to explore your assertions to see if they make sense to me but you don’t seem to have facts, just your opinion.

Who hired Mrs Thomas as a lobbyist? Was it the people appealing the case to the Supreme Court, or just people who sided with the appellants? I’m happy to answer specific questions, yours is very general and you haven’t connected the dots between a lobbyist attempting to influence and Mrs Thomas such that Justice Thomas should recuse himself in any specific case.

I read the articles posted here and they haven’t connected the dots either. Just innuendo and speculation.

Do you think Mrs and Justice Thomas have similar opinions on the law? What about any other Justice and their spouse?