I've never taken Thomas seriously (he didn't ask a question until Scalia died & all he did was join Scalia's opinions - not a serious thinker). I remember his being married during his confirmation hearing as an argument that he couldn't possibly have harassed Anita Hill. I'd never heard of her political activism until recently.
Justices recuse themselves if there's a conflict of interest w/a case & Trump's tax case wasn't personal. It was a legit constitutional question - can a prez refuse to release documents to Congress, disobey a subpoena, etc etc that we saw ad nauseum throughout Trump's tenure. A justice can be forced to recuse himself if a motion is made for him to do so & that wasn't done nor should it have been.
I don't understand the question re income. Do you mean can Thomas choose not to report outside income to the IRS? That answer would be no. I'm sure they file separate tax returns so as to not to mingle her compensation from his.
What bothers me is how radical she is if she believes in The Big Steal. I don't think married people have the same political postures, but I'd hate to think he, too, believes in that. He's not bright & he needs someone to tell him what to think. With Scalia (who despite his opinions was an intellectual) gone, I'd hate to think she's telling him what to think.
I never took Thomas to be a deep thinker either. Nor a very interested or even passionate judge.
My income question relates to particular requirements that other federal judges must report certain forms of income I believe and recuse themselves from certain cases. The Supreme Court is self regulating in that they as individuals have great latitude as to what they report and when they recuse themselves.
As far as Ginny Thomas is concerned, she has been active in Right wing politics for a very long time. She I believe was a lobbyist for several years in the early to mid 90’s and eventually created her “consulting” business in the late 90’s. I dare say she is the typically inside the beltway operative who has monetized her connections (in this case being married to a Supreme Court Justice) to powerful people who influence the laws that govern all manner of commerce.
Of course Washington is ripe with these types and on both sides of the political isle and all across our government. As far as Ginny Thomas is concerned, I’m not sure she believes much of what she espouses or if she merely plays the game to make money.
Interesting. I've never thought about justices' spouses - if they even have one.
As I said, the recusal process is 2 way. Either the justice knows when to recuse himself or the attorney for whoever would be harmed can force recusal through a motion. I don't foresee any case where Thomas would recuse himself unless his wife was actually charged w/ or a witness to crimes related to Jan. 6 & even then it would have to be a question to be settled for the trial or a final appeal where SCOTUS would be involved.
Frankly, I lost respect for SCOTUS when the frat boy & religious fanatic mom were appointed. Nothing good - or even well reasoned - is going to come from that court.
ETA: I just realized what you meant about self-regulating. All lawyers are bound by a state-mandated code of ethics; violation can get you disbarred. Judges have a state/federal mandated code of ethics; violation can get you removed. SCOTUS has no such code & for 250 years have relied on the honor system assuming that a justice would be honorable enough to report to his colleagues when he should recuse himself. As I said before, nothing has involved Mrs. Thomas directly. Unlike me, the justices are well aware of Thomas' wife activism & would expect him to recuse himself for a narrow case involving her. If not, motion for his recusal can be made.
Cyclone,
I’m curious as to your thoughts and opinion about the below article relating to the continuing controversy over Justice Thomas and his failure to recuse himself in case involving the Jan. 6th commission. Please note the final three or so paragraphs relating to the Supreme Court’s voluntary recusal process:
I'm a practicing attorney and just finished my required ethics training for license renewal this year. That's the sum total of my expertise. My thoughts follow.
The main one is that nobody, including the 8 other justices, care what Thomas's opinion is. This is unlikely to reach SCOTUS and if it does, it will most likely be a technical question that is easily answered 9-0 or 8-1. Thomas is highly unlikely to be a tie-breaker on some arcane matter.
Stephen Gillers is nationally recognized as The Legal/Judicial Ethics Expert. He's the go-to source so he's the person I would consider the most reliable and what he clearly states is Thomas's obligation is to ensure that nothing she's doing/done warranted recusal.
That statement, out of context, begs the questions how does he do that? First, there's spousal privilege to be overcome - spouses can't be forced to 1) testify against the other and 2) reveal marital communications. Practically, how would Thomas know exactly what she's done - if he asks outright "did you do X?", then he has criminal knowledge that the other justices don't and I would expect recusal. If he asks "you're not doing anything likely to come into my jurisdiction are you?," then he doesn't actually know. Gillers hints at "willful blindness" by saying Thomas couldn't maintain "false ignorance" but doesn't define it. And if he helped plan it, then that's a whole different story.
As I've said before, I had no clue about Thomas's wife's occupation so I'm way behind. And I haven't followed Jan 6 hearings but my understanding is there was a very narrow constitutional question before the court - "can the White House refuse to provide records." The answer is no. There is nothing in the constitution that extends such a privilege to the Executive Branch. Thomas's "yes" vote could mean anything - mostly that he's not smart or was being contrary or he was waving a red flag saying "I believe in The Big Steal."
The question of recusal would come only if it was a known fact that Mrs. Thomas's texts were buried in the pile of data that the WH didn't want to provide. Then, the question would have been phrased & argued differently but the answer would've been the same.
Now, that there are facts, if not evidence, that Mrs. Thomas is one of the masterminds or strongest leaders of The Big Lie campaign and subsequent insurrection, Thomas's position may change. If charges are actually brought and Mrs. Thomas becomes a defendant and the appeal gets to SCOTUS, I expect Thomas to recuse himself.
I disagree that there is no way for Thomas to be forced to recuse himself in a narrow, direct situation. The lawyers arguing before SCOTUS can make a motion that Thomas recuse himself. A motion requires a response & I doubt even this SCOTUS would vote to allow Thomas to sit on that case. In addition, reference can be made in the opinions of the court of Thomas's involvement. A separate opinion could be written about that.
The bigger question for me is if Mrs. Thomas has been actively involved in previous cases when Thomas was a justice, all those opinions would be called into question. The media seems to suggest that the Thomases are some sort of zealots who've spent the last 30 years undermining democracy.
Impeachment seems far-fetched. The man should never have been seated, but he was. I think the country is not up for yet another impeachment.
IMO, this wouldn't be an issue for any other justice. They're mostly serious enough to know when to at least pretend to appear impartial. Scalia was the only justice would could get Thomas to do anything. When Scalia died, it was like losing 2 justices.
That's my take. In general, I would take whatever Gillers says to be the best answer.
I'm a practicing attorney and just finished my required ethics training for license renewal this year. That's the sum total of my expertise. My thoughts follow.
The main one is that nobody, including the 8 other justices, care what Thomas's opinion is. This is unlikely to reach SCOTUS and if it does, it will most likely be a technical question that is easily answered 9-0 or 8-1. Thomas is highly unlikely to be a tie-breaker on some arcane matter.
Stephen Gillers is nationally recognized as The Legal/Judicial Ethics Expert. He's the go-to source so he's the person I would consider the most reliable and what he clearly states is Thomas's obligation is to ensure that nothing she's doing/done warranted recusal.
That statement, out of context, begs the questions how does he do that? First, there's spousal privilege to be overcome - spouses can't be forced to 1) testify against the other and 2) reveal marital communications. Practically, how would Thomas know exactly what she's done - if he asks outright "did you do X?", then he has criminal knowledge that the other justices don't and I would expect recusal. If he asks "you're not doing anything likely to come into my jurisdiction are you?," then he doesn't actually know. Gillers hints at "willful blindness" by saying Thomas couldn't maintain "false ignorance" but doesn't define it. And if he helped plan it, then that's a whole different story.
As I've said before, I had no clue about Thomas's wife's occupation so I'm way behind. And I haven't followed Jan 6 hearings but my understanding is there was a very narrow constitutional question before the court - "can the White House refuse to provide records." The answer is no. There is nothing in the constitution that extends such a privilege to the Executive Branch. Thomas's "yes" vote could mean anything - mostly that he's not smart or was being contrary or he was waving a red flag saying "I believe in The Big Steal."
The question of recusal would come only if it was a known fact that Mrs. Thomas's texts were buried in the pile of data that the WH didn't want to provide. Then, the question would have been phrased & argued differently but the answer would've been the same.
Now, that there are facts, if not evidence, that Mrs. Thomas is one of the masterminds or strongest leaders of The Big Lie campaign and subsequent insurrection, Thomas's position may change. If charges are actually brought and Mrs. Thomas becomes a defendant and the appeal gets to SCOTUS, I expect Thomas to recuse himself.
I disagree that there is no way for Thomas to be forced to recuse himself in a narrow, direct situation. The lawyers arguing before SCOTUS can make a motion that Thomas recuse himself. A motion requires a response & I doubt even this SCOTUS would vote to allow Thomas to sit on that case. In addition, reference can be made in the opinions of the court of Thomas's involvement. A separate opinion could be written about that.
The bigger question for me is if Mrs. Thomas has been actively involved in previous cases when Thomas was a justice, all those opinions would be called into question. The media seems to suggest that the Thomases are some sort of zealots who've spent the last 30 years undermining democracy.
Impeachment seems far-fetched. The man should never have been seated, but he was. I think the country is not up for yet another impeachment.
IMO, this wouldn't be an issue for any other justice. They're mostly serious enough to know when to at least pretend to appear impartial. Scalia was the only justice would could get Thomas to do anything. When Scalia died, it was like losing 2 justices.
That's my take. In general, I would take whatever Gillers says to be the best answer.
Thanks for your expertise and opinion Cyclone....How many billable hours should i inform my accountant to expect to cut a check for? Or is your time here in the Whipping Post considered Pro Bono? lol.....
My opinion here is same as everyone else's - free. I truly had no idea what Mrs. Thomas had been up to all these years.
Anyone else see today's testimony? Even though it wasn't terribly surprising, I found it incredibly heartbreaking to hear.
It amazes me that we were not only subject to the whims of such insecure men, but also how long the fall-out will be. Even more amazing is how many people out there who consider themselves "patriots" still need convincing.
I hope this encourages more people to come forward.
It won't change anyone's mind at all. They see it as strength. He's fighting to preserve the American way, and the enemy is anyone who tries to stop him.
There will always be those who die on that hill, people who complain about corrupt politicians while converting their pickup truck into a shrine to the worst of them.
But some potentially damning, at the very least, embarrassing, testimony that might open the door to other witnesses. And possibly, cause a few followers to lose their faith - from deplorables to persuadables. Lunging at Secret Service in a moving vehicle to go to the capitol. Supporting chants of lynching the VP. Open disregard for known armed rioters approaching the capitol.
I don't know if there will ever be enough meat on the bone to make for a criminal case against Trump. However, the hearing closed with hints at witness intimidation by the Trump camp - veiled threats are always hard to prove.
Ironically, Giuliani helped take the NY mob down in Federal court by getting the little guys to implicate their superiors on conspiracy charges. Today's witness stated Giuliani requested a preemptive pardon for Jan 6 events. I'm just saying, even if it doesn't change some peoples' minds, today's testimony opens the door a little more to other witnesses. Keep peeling that onion.
Anyone else see today's testimony? Even though it wasn't terribly surprising, I found it incredibly heartbreaking to hear.
It amazes me that we were not only subject to the whims of such insecure men, but also how long the fall-out will be. Even more amazing is how many people out there who consider themselves "patriots" still need convincing.
I hope this encourages more people to come forward.
Heartbreaking, infuriating, and dispiriting.
POTUS tried to grab the steering wheel from his secret service agent to direct the car to the Capitol & when rebuffed, lunged again all while cursing he's the f-ing prez & is going to the Capitol. What prez has ever done that? (I'm surprised Trump even knows how to drive.)
The firsthand accounts of Trump's knowledge of the armed insurrectionists who weren't intent on hurting HIM but ready to HANG the VP which Trump said he deserved.
Possibly worst of all was Gen. Flynn taking the 5th in response to the question "Do you believe in the Constitutional peaceful transition of power?" A Lt. General & former NSA who has sworn an oath to "support & defend the constitution" can't respond w/o incriminating himself? About what? That he doesn't know what it says or that he doesn't believe the constitution he's sworn to defend? The constitution in two articles that requires the "peaceful transition of power?" He takes the 5th?
Seems the only people w/any integrity are the assistants. The major players are all busy jockeying for pardons.
It won't change anyone's mind at all. They see it as strength. He's fighting to preserve the American way, and the enemy is anyone who tries to stop him.
The extreme rights - the MAGAs, the Pentecostals and those armed to the teeth all seem to think that they have divine rights to patriotism and righteousness. Anybody with a free-thinking mind is treated as some sort of God-hating, communist outsider. Don't drape yourself in the American flag while singing songs of freedom when you despise and disrespect Democracy.
If nothing else comes of these hearings hopefully some of the henchman/women will be indicted and prosecuted for their roles in the attempted overthrow of the United States gov’t.
Eastman, Rudy, Jordan, Gates, et. al.....
It seems to me that AG Garland has begun this process. Fortunately no matter what happens to the committee after the November midterms, Garland will be AG for two more years. Hopefully he will build a good, solid case against Trump’s minions and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
Eastman, Rudy, Jordan, Gates, et. al.....
I'd like to add Don Jr to that list.
Absolutely...And Flynn, Stone...and many more it seems.
With Little Donny, however, daddy’s money will probably save him....
I’m curious if the rats will begin to jump ship when Garland gets them in a room offers them a deal..Rudy in particular...Per NYS law, he stands to loose a nice NYS pension if he’s convicted of a felony....Flynn should have already been stripped of his fat federal pension but I don’t believe the feds. have such a stipulation. Flynn should go to Levinworth for the rest of his life and his son some other prison.
Daddy doesn't have any money. Never did. He might call in a favor, but he can't buy Jr out unless he uses Stop The Steal funds he got from naive donors who thought it would pay for recounts.
Not sure why Rudy would have a NYS pension; he was a fed employee when he was US Attorney for less than 10 years; he was a NYC employee as mayor for 2 terms. He's been in private practice plus books & speaking engagements before devoting himself to Trump who announced he wasn't paying Rudy. He could lose his federal pension only if he's convicted of crimes against the US. Rudy's 3rd divorce may still be going on, but Wife #2 got a hefty settlement & Wife #3 thinks/thought he's hiding assets.
I don't know about Flynn. He may have to be convicted in a court martial to lose his pension, but I know zero about military law. Flynn, I suspect, has money from his many dubious dealings so the pension may not matter.
Hard to believe anyone other than Stone would be willing to go to jail for Trump.
As a New York City employee Rudy should have been eligible for a NYS pension as state, city, county, towns, villages and many other entities within NYS are eligible to participate in the NYS pension system. SUNY and CUNY employees, NYS Thruway employees, the alphabet soup of New York State Authority employees (like the NYS Dorm Authority) for instance. And in most cases you can roll in or "buy back" federal service time into your NYS pension to add to your years of service.
Military members often do this when they take jobs within NYS gov't....So Rudy, given his possibly close to 20 years and highest three years of salary as Mayor could be looking at a six figure pension annually for the rest of his life. By the way, a pension payment that only has federal tax withheld and not state income tax, social security, or Medicare.....If his wife had a good lawyer she may have received a portion of his monthly check for the rest of her life...
Point is Rudy has a lot to lose...
Interesting re pensions for indirect state employees.
I was following the divorce because the judge was handling a very high profile divorce simultaneously. In filings, Rudy earned about $6mm/yr at a firm, then $20mm total in 2016 & 17, & then went to work for Trump pro bono in 2018 specifically to avoid racking up more assets to divide w/#3. They both have top notch divorce attorneys.
I know Rudy has significant assets beyond his pension as he co-founded and helped operate his "security consultant" business after leaving office as Mayor. He smartly leveraged his post 911 performance as mayor to various entities claiming he was a security expert.
We all know it was the experts and workers in the various dept. within NYC and New York who did the real work post 911. But as with countless other individuals and businesses who cashed in on "The War on Terror" Rudy made out nicely by riding the title wave of his popularity to a pretty large fortune.
And now he's risked losing much of it. Including his license to practice law and potentially his freedom. Seems to me his reputation is already in tatters among those in the legal profession.
Rudy was a great US attorney.
Yes, his is a cautionary tale for people who overestimate their abilities.
