I believe it to be true that Clarence Thomas could not even be prevented from taking part

[Atticus]

in a SCOTUS review of Ginni's appeal of her criminal conviction if that were to occur. He is free to CHOOSE to recuse himself, but he cannot be forced to do so.

Apparently, the only way that he might be influenced to recuse himself is if the weight of BIPARTISAN public opinion was to become unbearable. With regard to that, would there be widespread outrage and loud demands for him to recuse IF GINNI WAS CALLED AS A WITNESS by the January 6th Committee and/or a criminal prosecution of a person charged with criminal acts to reverse the Biden victory?

I agree with those who say there is already plenty of reason for a reputable Justice to recuse from taking part in any review of a January 6th-related appeal but, obviously, Clarence is not such a Justice. Would Ginni being called to testify possibly be enough to put his back flat against the wall?

How could any judge sit on a case in which his wife had been a wiiness?

[exboyfil]

1. No bipartisan

because the GOP only cares about power. Trouble is their voters are the same way.

[dchill]

2. Clarence Thomas will never recuse himself.

He's better than that.

[elleng]

3. Correct, there is no forcing a justice to do anything.

[RussBLib]

16. you COULD force them off the bench

if the behavior is egregious enough and enough pols support it.

I think that's about it.

[Grasswire2]

4. charge her to the fullest extent of the law...and let public opinion take the wheel.

Don't be afraid of charging her, at the same time as charging Meadows, for example.

Bring it on, and let 'er rip.

We, the people, are capable of raising hell.

And the idea of taking a feather duster to this knife fight must end.

[MyOwnPeace]

12. I'm with 'ya, but............

this "charging Meadows stuff" - when, exactly, will THAT take place?

[calimary]

13. It ABSOLUTELY must end.

There should be consequences!

Where are the consequences???? Or do we just blow that off if it’s a Republican? Is THAT how it works now?

[Grasswire2]

14. "look forward, not back" is about to lose us our republic.

If we had made them feel some pain a couple of decades ago, we might be in a better position now.

"Permissive politics" is just as fraught with consequences as extreme "permissive parenting."

[LisaM]

5. She was on the Bush inauguration committee!

He didn't recuse himself then, despite a clear interest in the outcome. And, thanks to that decision, we have the Supreme Court that we do now.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. I have a different take:

Last edited Mon May 23, 2022, 06:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Let Clarence squirm while other Justices go after Ginni. And don't forget new Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will be gearing up for some really inquisitive inquiries.

And what could Thomas possibly write in an opinion that justifies his wife's antics/insurrection?

[barbtries]

7. by being a republican judge.

ethics schmethics.

[Mr. Ected]

8. He never thought they would be caught in the act

Now that the specter of public attention has spoiled their treasonous pillow talk, the abandonment of ethics that a Supreme Court Justice is well-acquainted with should be the noose with which he and Ginny hang themselves.

[getagrip_already]

9. He has no say unless a case makes it to scotus.....

What is she going to claim? Privilege because she is married to justice?

I doubt there is a lot of support even among the right for establishing that.

[plimsoll]

10. I think he could work the rocket docket.

The notion that he would recuse himself is risible, similarly the suggestion that the other Republican judges might object. These unelected hooligans in black robes are powers unto themselves.

[donte]

11. Clarence Thomas recusal

According to the repubs any criticism of their boy Thomas is bullying and a high tech lynching!

[Samrob]

15. We need a new Amendment to the Constitution...and as soon as possible...on impeaching SC Justices.

[drray23]

17. well its already there.

Justices can be impeached like any other public official.
Slight problem is that it takes 2/3 of the senate to do so. Never going to happen.

[no_hypocrisy]

18. Essentially jury nullification

[budkin]

19. Never happening

He's not going to give up a single iota of power. EVER.

[onenote]

20. My prediction -- the Court will never take a challenge to a Ginni conviction

First, it is highly unlikely that Thomas is going to be charged with a criminal offense, let alone convicted of one.
Second, if it happened that she was charged and convicted, my prediction is that Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Roberts and at least one other Justice will oppose granting certiorari to hear the case.

[Atticus]

21. I totally agree. I was using her fictional and highly unlikely criminal conviction as

what I thought was an extreme example.