The corporate media has been relentless in recent weeks in attacks on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Leftist politicians and media outlets are issuing increasing demands for his recusal in upcoming cases related to the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and President Donald Trump’s claims of executive immunity.
Critics argue that Justice Thomas should step aside because of his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas’s political activities. A well-known conservative activist, Ginni has been heavily targeted by the left for her minimal involvement in activities related to the aftermath of the 2020 election, which included attending the Jan. 6 protests and sending out a couple of form emails.
Paoletta is absolutely correct that Justice Thomas is not obligated to recuse in Trump immunity case under well-established standards for recusal for lower courts, let alone for SCOTUS. https://t.co/SjSBVn4QGs
— Jonathan H. Adler (@jadler1969) April 18, 2024
Co-author of the book “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words” Mark Paoletta wrote in The Federalist on Thursday: “Mrs. Thomas played no role in any events following the 2020 election. She briefly attended the Jan. 6 rally but left before President Trump spoke and long before some of the crowd went to the Capitol. She also condemned the violence on Jan. 6, which was reflected in one of her texts to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows at the time. Ginni Thomas’ activities were minimal and mainstream.”
This isn’t the first time such arguments have surfaced. Historically, justices have recused themselves only if there was a direct financial benefit or a substantial question about their ability to perform their duties impartially. For instance, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg never recused herself from cases involving her husband’s law firm or decisions that cited her daughter’s scholarly work. Similarly, other justices have made decisions on cases where their spouses had expressed strong opinions on related topics without facing accusations of ethical breaches.
Paoletta points out the inconsistency in the current demands: “The Democrats’ made-up double standards for recusal are outrageous and hypocritical.” He compares the situation to past instances where liberal judges like Ninth Circuit’s Stephen Reinhardt refused recusal despite clear conflicts involving their spouses’ active roles in related legal matters. Reinhardt’s decision was defended because a judge’s spouse can hold positions of advocacy without affecting the judge’s responsibilities.
Leftists are insinuating that Justice Thomas’s impartiality might be compromised. Yet, these narratives ignore the robust judicial ethics that govern the Supreme Court. The recently adopted ethics code underscores that a justice should only recuse “where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.”
The insistence on recusal turns out to be nothing more than a tactical move by the left to control the makeup of the court. The demands lack substantial legal basis and represent a selective and politicized approach to judicial ethics.
