What is interesting here is that Thomas has never recused himself. Even when the SCOUS was considering the travel ban. From the article:
And, though nobody knew it at the time, Ginni Thomas was an undisclosed paid consultant at the conservative pressure group the Center for Security Policy, when its founder, Frank Gaffney, submitted an amicus brief to the Court supporting Trump’s Muslim travel ban.
And isn’t it interesting that the only vote for blocking the National Archives to provide WH documents came from Thomas.
It says in the article that they were both contacted and refused to make a statement. It will be interesting to see if Roberts does anything. IMHO he has always been concerned with how the “face” of the SCOTUS appears.
"If you could take a secret poll of the other eight Justices, I have no doubt that they are appalled by Virginia Thomas’s behavior. "
"Gillers thinks that the Supreme Court should be bound by a code of conduct, just as all lower-court judges in the federal system are. That code requires a judge to recuse himself from hearing any case in which personal entanglements could lead a fair-minded member of the public to question his impartiality. Gillers stressed that “it’s an appearance test,” adding, “It doesn’t require an actual conflict. The reason we use an appearance test is because we say the appearance of justice is as important as the fact of justice itself.” "
Would Gillers be capable of recognizing a fair-minded person? What causative relationship does a wife’s political interests have to do with her husband’s at work decisions? Is there any evidence she is pressuring Thomas to make decisions he would not otherwise make. Is there any evidence she or Thomas are receiving remuneration for his pro-conservative decisions.
I read elsewhere “Ginsburg spent much of her legal career as an advocate for gender equality and women’s rights, winning many arguments before the Supreme Court. She advocated as a volunteer attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union and was a member of its board of directors and one of its general counsel in the 1970s.”
Should she have recused herself on SCOTUS decisions re gender equality and women’s rights? It seems she was pretty partisan on those issues.
What about Pelosi voting on legislation that will benefit family members if passed ?
Any requirement to recuse should be applied even-handedly to all sides of all branches of government and not be used selectively to suppress the votes of opponents to gerrymandering decisions/outcomes. Never saw any Dems recuse themselves.
Should representative be required to recuse themselves from voting on bills affecting corporate lobbies who have donated to rhem?
Last fall, Justice Clarence Thomas, in an address at Notre Dame, accused the media of spreading the false notion that the Justices are merely politicians in robes.
This is what’s happening and this very thread is evidence of that. Why you might ask? First…most all of the MSM has gone politically left and there’s no honest denial of that. Second…Trump added 3 Justices that are viewed as conservative, changing the SCOTUS from a liberal majority. The left has the WH, Congress and the Senate but not the SCOTUS…which in my opinion, is the design of our founding fathers and their original intent of “checks and balances”.