âȘ Even as Justice Clarence Thomas was hospitalized, a leftist lynch mob rallied on social media calling for his impeachment or death. They werenât especially picky about which one it would be.
Last week, CNN and the Washington Post published text messages between Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomasâs wife, Virginia, who goes by âGinni,â and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows exchanged in the days leading up to and on the day of the Capitol riot.
âHelp This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!â Ginni reportedly urged Meadows days after the 2020 contest when news organizations began to call the race for former Vice President Joe Biden. âYou are the leader, with him, who is standing for Americaâs constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.â
Out of the 29 of more than 2,300 text messages released from Meadowsâ vast trove of data handed to the Select Committee, not one, the Washington Post conceded, included a direct reference to the sitting justice as the weaponized probe sought to dox a private citizen for petitioning her government.
âThe messages, which do not directly reference Justice Thomas or the Supreme Court, show for the first time how Ginni Thomas used her access to Trumpâs inner circle to promote and seek to guide the presidentâs strategy to overturn the election results,â the Post reported with the paper adopting Pelosi committeeâs framing to indict private political views as a blockbuster scandal.
CNN reported Monday the committee will now seek an interview with Ginni, who has become the latest to be dragged before lawmakers for exercising dissident views, even in private. But the probeâs latest request is just as much targeted at Ginni, a long-time conservative activist who has never concealed her activism, as it is her husband.
The leftâs racist disdain for Justice Thomas has never been a well-kept secret by a virulent left frustrated by the mere existence of a black conservative, let alone one on the high bench. Attacks on Judge Ketanji Brown Jacksonâs record on lenient sentencing for child sex crimes are cruel and racist. Baseless criticism of Justice Thomas is warranted, however, for his political heresy, starting with his own confirmation process three decades ago.
Publication of the text messages provoked immediate calls for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from any cases related to the Jan. 6 investigation for the crime of his wifeâs public political views raising concerns over an election with record mail-in voting and last-minute rule changes. New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez even demanded Justice Thomas resign or face impeachment.
The same radical faction championing Bidenâs selection of a black woman for the Supreme Court as a groundbreaking step forward and berating Republicans for refusing to support her were simultaneously demanding that the only sitting black justice on the court step down.
The calls for Thomasâ death are based on pure unadulterated hatred. And so are the calls for his impeachment. None of them have even the faintest basis in anything resembling the law.
The Women’s March called for the impeachment of Justice Thomas because his wife, Ginni, had advocated against election fraud. Or as the racist leftist hate group put it, “The revelations that Ginni Thomas advocated for the overthrow of our democracy are disqualifying â not just for her as a human being of any decency, but for her husband.â
A âhuman being of any decencyâ wouldnât be going after a judge by targeting his wife. The only possible reason for disqualifying Thomas would be the presumption that men are obligated to control their wives. And prevent them from expressing political views in public. Is this the exciting new feminist position that the Womenâs March would like to debut?
Would any of the great minds at the Womenâs March like to contemplate the legal implications of creating a male guardianship for women of the kind that might have existed in the 18th century? Justice Breyerâs wife is a member of the English nobility, it doesnât mean he answers to the Queen.
Judges whose spouses have an âinterestâ in a case are obligated to recuse themselves from it. But having political views about a national issue is not the same thing as having an âinterestâ in it. I doubt thereâs a single judicial spouse who didnât have an opinion on the 2020 election. And many of them may have signed petitions, posted comments, or otherwise urged an outcome.
Or participated in the Womenâs March attacking the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential election. Thatâs political activism, itâs not an âinterest.”
The New York Times and the New Yorker cited a federal law stating that judges must rescue themselves if their spouses have âan interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.â A point of view is not an interest. If it were, there could be no married judges.
Nevertheless law professor Lawrence Tribe tweeted, âThat clearly applied here.â How? âBy writing to Meadows, who was chief of staff and active in the âStop the Stealâ movement, she joined the team resisting the results of the election,â Stephen Gillers, an NYU prof quoted by the New York Times, convolutedly argued. âShe made herself part of the team and so she has an interest in the decisions of the court that could affect Trumpâs goal of reversing the results.â
Millions of Americans have phoned, sent letters and emails to members of Congress advocating particular policies. Did they all join the âteamâ of every single public official whom they contacted? Should any judges theyâre married to have to recuse themselves from those cases?
Had Ginni Thomas been formally employed by the Trump team, it would be another story. Instead she was an activist urging members of the team to do everything they possibly could. It doesnât make her a member of the team.
If that werenât absurd enough, both media outlets have cited a law stating that âany justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.â Is there any federal judge, appointed as part of a partisan process, whose impartiality canât be reasonably questioned in partisan cases?
As usual the Left has invented a standard that it doesnât intend to apply in any other cases. Certainly not in any cases where it would inhibit its stable of unconstitutional judicial activists.
âWhat did Justice Clarence Thomas know, and when did he know it?â a New York Times op-ed demanded. The author, Jesse Wegman, a Times editor, presumably knows the political views of his wife, Kyra, and also, presumably, he writes his own views in his columns. Not hers.
This isnât a complicated concept for any functional adult. Supreme Court justices are aware of the storm of controversy over the cases in front of them. Theyâre expected to follow the law and rule accordingly without taking into account the views of family members, friends, and New York Times editors. Thatâs what they do for a living.
Thomas married Ginni in 1987. By then he was nearly 40 years old and had worked as a lawyer, a prosecutor, and as a civil rights official in the Reagan administration. He had developed his own point of view on the world. A unique one as testified by his rulings over the years.
Leftists and their media would like us to believe that the only reason Justice Thomas believes anything or rules on anything is because his white wife tells him to do it. Thatâs stupidly racist.
Even those who violently hate Thomas ought to be able to admit that he has a developed judicial philosophy and that his rulings reflect that unique worldview. The idea that a man who has defied expectations throughout his life, who has persevered despite being repeatedly hit with every racial slur in the book, is just following his wifeâs lead is dumb beyond belief. And yet this is the argument that the lynch mob targeting Justice Thomas is going with.
After all the fury over his wifeâs activism, what does this amount to in Justice Thomasâ rulings? Where is the evidence of any conflict of interest or any violation of the law? It doesnât exist.
The New York Times noted that “Justices Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.” responded to the Supreme Court rejecting an election lawsuit by Texas by “issuing a brief statement suggesting the majority had acted too soon in shutting the case down.” Actually Alito wrote the dissent, with Thomas joining him, on procedural grounds. At the time the dissent was issued, the media and its legal experts argued that it was not a ruling on the election, but on jurisdictional standing.
The paper also misleadingly notes that, “Justice Thomas addressed election fraud in a dissent from the Supreme Courtâs decision to turn away a challenge to Pennsylvaniaâs voting procedures.” The Supreme Court had previously deadlocked several times over the issue with previous dissents by Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas, and the Thomas dissent highlighted by the paper had focused on the importance of providing “clear rules for future elections.”
The media and its legal experts, shoddy as they may be, know all this perfectly well. They know that the paper is deliberately misrepresenting these cases in order to single out Thomas. And that thereâs no basis for doing so.
Thomas wrote as one of the courtâs two leading conservatives, along with Alito, and there was nothing unique in his dissents that deviated from his judicial philosophy. Using his wife to attack him is the despicable tactic of a ruthless totalitarian movement with no shred of decency.
Having run out of any credible legal arguments, the lynch mob once again borrows the familiar logic of Russiagate to argue that their smear campaign proves that Thomas must recuse.
âJudging by the nature of the text messages and the uproar over them, that provision alone is enough to require Justice Thomasâs recusal, legal experts said,â the New York Times argued.
Since the New York Times and its media partners are the source of the âuproar,” conservative judges would have to recuse every time lefties launch a vocal smear campaign against them. Thatâs using the media as a hecklerâs veto to bar conservative judges from cases.
And thatâs what this is really all about. âȘ
â¶ïž 10 Minutes 27 Seconds
