At one point in time, a judge would rather step down than have an obvious conflict of interest ruin his (they were all men back then) reputation. At one point in time, presidents appointed professors, politicians, and other prominent lawyers to the SCOTUS. Until 25 years ago, the only question regarding confirmation was whether the candidate was qualified. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, despite being an unapologetic liberal and women’s rights advocate, was nearly unanimously approved.

Earl Warren, perhaps the most famous Chief Judge in modern history, had been the Governor of California. It was a different time. Justice Thomas was controversial and not just because he really didn’t have the traditional obvious qualifications, but, of course, his abhorrent behavior with Anita Hill. Of course, traditional deference won out. He became the most reliable right-wing justice on the court. He is famous for his silence during oral argument and obvious rulings, though he is intellectually powerful, the silence is symbolic. He is a vote, and one known before the case is filed.

Today the NYT came out with a bombshell about just how deep the corruption and conflict with Ginni ran, just how bizarrely unacceptable it would be considered beforehand. It is not out of the realm of possibility that she committed serious crimes leading to Jan. 6th, he would be in a precarious position. Whether anyone will prosecute her or not – if she committed a crime – is another question. With prosecution, impeachment or (much more likely, stepping down) is possible. Without, nope.

From the article.

As but one example of just Justice Thomas’s impeachable acts:

In 2008, Justice Thomas delivered a keynote speech to donors to the Manhattan Institute and spoke at a secretive political retreat hosted by the billionaire Charles Koch. And he has had a long relationship with the Heritage Foundation, which employed his wife as a liaison to the George W. Bush White House. The group once invoked Justice Thomas’s speech at one of its Leadership for America fund-raisers in a direct appeal that it sent to Philip Morris seeking a $50,000 contribution. 

Obvious. That’s all one can say, it’s entirely obvious that he should have been gone immediately. It gets worse, forgive us, but this is fcking unbelievable. Regarding the Big Lie and Big Steal:

The way it was presented to me was that Ginni was uniting these different factions around a singular mission on January 6,” said Stockton, who previously worked for Bannon. “That Ginni was involved made sense — she’s pretty neutral, and she doesn’t have a lot of enemies in the movement.”

Had any single goal regarding January 6th worked, even delay, it would have gone to the SCOTUS for the legality. And there they were, together.

And, of course, the most recent, another obvious one:

Ginni Thomas co-signed a letter in December calling for House Republicans to expel Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger from their conference for joining the Jan. 6 committee. Thomas and her co-authors said the investigation “brings disrespect to our country’s rule of law” and “legal harassment to private citizens who have done nothing wrong,” adding that they would begin “a nationwide movement to add citizens’ voices to this effort.”

A few weeks later, the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 to allow the release of records from the Trump White House related to the Jan. 6 attack. Justice Thomas was the sole dissenter.

If any part of Congress’s investigation is ever legally challenged, it will end up before the Supreme Court. Ginni is already on record, saying it was entirely legal.

If she committed a crime, it would likely put Thomas’s position on the Court at risk. But again, someone would need to prosecute that crime. We haven’t seen any indication that DOJ has any interest, yet.

****

[email protected] with Nicole Hickman