Last week, we reported that, in 2020, after Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas was engaged in a weeks-long text-travaganza with former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Ginni was texting Meadows obsessively to encourage him to be relentless in un-stealing a non-stolen presidential race in order to keep Trump in office despite how clear and demonstrable it was THAT THE MF LOST!!
Sorry, but these people are exhausting.
People were already arguing that since Ginni has been such a vocal and outspoken MAGA rube, who has spread “stop the steal” propaganda far and wide, and had even cheered on the Jan. 6 Whiny Whites Rebellion at the U.S. Capitol, her husband, Supreme court Justice Clarence Thomas, should recuse himself from any proceedings attached to the 2020 election. Ginni, of course, has denied any existing conflicts of interest, but now that her long AF series of texts to Meadows has been revealed, democratic leaders are being more vocal on how unethical it would be for Clarence to be anywhere near cases that involve the election.
“This is a textbook case,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week”. “You cannot have a justice hearing cases related to this election, and, in fact, the ethics rules that apply to all the other federal judges say that if it involves a family member—appearance of impartiality—they have to recuse themselves.”
But for whatever dumb reason, Supreme Court justices aren’t held to the same ethical standards.
From Yahoo News:
Ethics rules that apply to all other federal judges do not apply to those on the nation’s high court. As a result, Clarence Thomas is under no obligation to recuse himself from any case that comes before the court, regardless of any connection he may have to it.
The Supreme Court’s nine justices are the only judges in the United States — state or federal — not governed by a code of ethical conduct.
But why though? Why are there seemingly arbitrary exemptions for justices and ethical conduct? What are these built-in excuses for ethical impropriety even for?
Anyway, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) echoed similar sentiments in regards to Supreme Court non-rules.
“I have a lot of frustrations with the Supreme Court as a whole that they have not taken better measures to police themselves,” he said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “There are ethics rules that they hold lower courts responsible for that they don’t put upon themselves.
“I think most of America doesn’t understand that I could be a justice and I could give a paid speech in front of a group that has either a direct matter in front of the Supreme Court or amicus briefs in front of the Supreme Court,” Booker continued. “And I think that they need to use this Thomas affair as an opportunity to change their ethics rules.”
And you already know Squad member Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was on it.
“If not, his failure to disclose income from right-wing organizations, recuse himself from matters involving his wife, and his vote to block the Jan 6th commission from key information must be investigated and could serve as grounds for impeachment,” she tweeted Tuesday.
Booker, Ocasio-Cortez and Klobuchar, of course, are not alone.
“At the bare minimum, Justice Thomas needs to recuse himself from any case related to the Jan. 6 investigation, and should Donald Trump run again, any case related to the 2024 election,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said Friday.
Yeah, well, Republicans are to ethical behavior what Trump is to proper tanning consistency, so let’s not hold our breath on that one.