With one Supreme Court justice soon to be replaced, it seems that each bench seat has been made less certain and stable. And, of course, it’s all being done by the constant pushing of the political left.
Soon after Justice Stephen Breyers’ retirement announcement, talk began fluttering about surrounding the possible ousting of conservative Chief Justice John Roberts. And if that wasn’t bad enough, just days later, conservative justice Clarence Thomas started to see backlash, demanding that he either step back on several cases or see himself impeached.
By far, the latter is the most ridiculous, as the reasoning behind it is little more than those on the left drawing nonexistent ties to things that have nothing to do with one another.
To explain, more than a couple of liberally biased media outlets have recently written articles, and rather long ones at that, surrounding the supposed wrongs of Justice Thomas’s wife, Ginni. Now, to be clear, she’s done nothing illegal or even sketchy for that matter.
Rather, her only notable flaw is that she is a conservative and, therefore, backs conservative movements.
And apparently, the fact that she does so makes her husband’s job in more than a few cases a “conflict of interest.” As I said, it’s ridiculous.
Case and point for those on the left are the recent and ongoing Supreme Court discussions surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.
According to articles from The New Yorker, The New Republic, The Washington Post, and, of course, the liberal CNN, D.C. is a rather small town when it comes to politics, meaning that if you work there and in politics, chances are you’ve worked with the same people and/or their spouses a number of times. And for the most part, this is true.
As The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer chronicles, Ginni Thomas spent a portion of her career as a director for the Council for National Policy Action or CNP. Mayer, as a leftist, describes the organization as a “dark-money wing of the conservative pressure group” that “connects wealthy donors with some of the most radical right-wing figures in America.”
Mayer writes about this as though it should be a blot on Ginni’s resume and existence rather than the simple support of conservative ideals. On the contrary, when members of the political left do the same, it upholds democracy.
The journalist also sees Ginni’s time as a member of the conservative student group Turning Point USA’s advisory board as a ding, particularly since it sent “busloads of protesters to Washington on January 6th.”
Another ding against Ginni comes from her avid social media support of the protest on that day. Captions such as “LOVE MAGA people!!!!” and “GOD BLESS EACH Of YOU STANDING UP OR PRAYING” could be seen on her Facebook profile leading up to the event. Mayer does correctly admit these were made before the violence began.
However, she nor her counterparts at the New Republic, the Post, or CNN make this much more than a footnote.
So in their eyes, Ginni Thomas is one of the very “insurrectionists” that the Supreme Court and Justice Clarence Thomas are in the process of ruling on. And of course, that means there is a major conflict of interest going on that should cause Thomas to recuse himself on this case and any other that might have ties to the events of January 6, as well as a few other cases that involve seemingly conservative ideals.
In fact, one journalist, Michael Tomasky of the New Republic, claims that Thomas should be impeached for his help in ruling against the House’s January 6 select committee’s subpoenas for Trump’s documents, as well as for the 2000 Bush v. Gore case he was involved with. It was noted that, at the time, Thomas’s wife was working for the Heritage Foundation, which had been charged with screening resumes for potential Bush administration staff members if he won.
Again, this supposedly puts Thomas in a conflicting position because his wife just happened to agree and support his decision on the case.
I’m sorry, but is Thomas supposed to recuse himself in any case that involves ideas that his wife might be supportive of or even oppose? That’s like saying I shouldn’t be able to write about any topic that my husband and I agree on. It’s preposterous, to say the least.
But at this point, the Democrats are facing a downward hill and know it. Suffice it to say, they are getting desperate.