Sympathetically, perhaps, but not on the basis of anything he's actually done. The SCOTUS has always been political (ideally, far less so than the other two branches, and historically that's mostly held true)--that's why it's separate--it's just more unabashedly so now; keeping with our times and political movement that has Georgen Kenn…
Sympathetically, perhaps, but not on the basis of anything he's actually done. The SCOTUS has always been political (ideally, far less so than the other two branches, and historically that's mostly held true)--that's why it's separate--it's just more unabashedly so now; keeping with our times and political movement that has Georgen Kennan'ed itself into a corner like a rabid animal the past 14 years. Anyway, this was understood by those who created it and it's just part and parcel of being human beings too. But...we don't "remove" people from jobs like that for their political leanings, we do so for malfeasance...this doesn't qualify. This might strike us as being so because it's judiciary, but I'm guessing (purely) wouldn't stand a legal review for one second.
It was instructive to watch the segment on Ginni Thomas on MSNBC last evening, during Rachel's hour, if I recall correctly. Clarence has voted on cases in which there has been a conflict of interest.
The commentator pointed out that SCOTUS has no code of ethics.
AND that John Roberts is ineffectual in managing the court by not having Clarence recuse himself...among other issues indicating an absence of leadership.
I think there are grounds, Robert: he should have recused himself because his wife is a "person of interest" in this ongoing investigation. So signaling, as he does, that he will protect the Trumpists at all costs is a sign that his judicial "independence" is a sham. I am well aware that the judiciary is a political organization (there was an interesting NPR report on this this very morning) but Thomas has been peculiarly empowered to engage in activities that would be regarded as ranging form questionable to nefarious were it someone not on the Bench.
Sympathetically, perhaps, but not on the basis of anything he's actually done. The SCOTUS has always been political (ideally, far less so than the other two branches, and historically that's mostly held true)--that's why it's separate--it's just more unabashedly so now; keeping with our times and political movement that has Georgen Kennan'ed itself into a corner like a rabid animal the past 14 years. Anyway, this was understood by those who created it and it's just part and parcel of being human beings too. But...we don't "remove" people from jobs like that for their political leanings, we do so for malfeasance...this doesn't qualify. This might strike us as being so because it's judiciary, but I'm guessing (purely) wouldn't stand a legal review for one second.
It was instructive to watch the segment on Ginni Thomas on MSNBC last evening, during Rachel's hour, if I recall correctly. Clarence has voted on cases in which there has been a conflict of interest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IemrkukybJ8
The commentator pointed out that SCOTUS has no code of ethics.
AND that John Roberts is ineffectual in managing the court by not having Clarence recuse himself...among other issues indicating an absence of leadership.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/31/is-ginni-thomas-a-threat-to-the-supreme-court
Thanks for the clip of Mehdi Hassan talking with Jane Mayer. She did some fine investigative work in writing the article.
I just posted her article, in response to a comment above.
Actually, it was Mehdi Hassan, with his sly humor.
Oops. That's right.
I think there are grounds, Robert: he should have recused himself because his wife is a "person of interest" in this ongoing investigation. So signaling, as he does, that he will protect the Trumpists at all costs is a sign that his judicial "independence" is a sham. I am well aware that the judiciary is a political organization (there was an interesting NPR report on this this very morning) but Thomas has been peculiarly empowered to engage in activities that would be regarded as ranging form questionable to nefarious were it someone not on the Bench.
Then how about new regulations to set up ethic guidelines such as lower courts follow.
If it becomes apparent that his vote in this case was intended to protect his wife from liability, that would be a different level of activism.
Who knows what we may discover though, there’s a lot of pages to peruse!
My gut is that something is going to come out….