Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin raised concerns after the justice’s wife reportedly praised an organization’s opposition to Supreme Court reform.
Justice Clarence Thomas faces yet another call to recuse himself, following reporting that his wife, Ginni Thomas, praised a conservative religious group’s opposition to Supreme Court reform. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called on the justice to recuse himself from cases involving that group, the First Liberty Institute.
ProPublica reported that Ginni wrote in an email to the group, “YOU GUYS HAVE FILLED THE SAILS OF MANY JUDGES. CAN I JUST TELL YOU, THANK YOU SO, SO, SO MUCH.”
Of course, calls to reform the court — some of which have been endorsed by President Joe Biden recently — have gained traction due in part to Thomas’ ethics scandals.
If there is ever a justice who needs to be impeached and removed.
But since Congress lacks a spine, it won’t happen. We can only await the inevitable.
REPUBLICANS.
Not congress.
Oh pwetty pwease Mr. Thomas, will you step down from your high paying, low work hour, massively benefit ridden job you’ve had for decades while reaping millions in gifts and kickbacks entirely consequence free?
I know you have literally zero obligation to do so, but we have no way of forcing you out so we’re just gonna ask, we’ll even give a stern finger wag!
deleted by creator
I’ve already said this twice today since I was so bummed out about it in the debate, but Kamala was handed a PERFECT opportunity to discuss corruption in the courts and she completely missed it for what it was… I don’t even think she realizes what she could have said.
When Trump went on about all his court wins it was because of corrupt judges picked by the heritage foundation. She could have at least called out Cannon for being Trumps lapdog and could have roped Thomas into it by mentioning his somewhat “random” comment in an unrelated case that was specifically meant to signal to Cannon how she should continue with Trump’s case…
The elections are about more than just the two douchebags we have to choose from, it’s about the entirety of government. :(
Just remove all of the judges after Kamala wins, I never understood why Americans allow previous presidents judges to continue to fuck over people long after they’re gone.
They should be in jail not living a life of luxury.
I think nothing much will happen if she wins.
And that is a victory, a functioning government *, that’s better than a tear down of government , etc
But there is so much damage. A center right president cannot fix it, and there will be worse to come over the months and years.
- not applicable in all states. Functioning may vary
I don’t have much hope either, Obama literally ran on hope and change and kept us in all the wars we were in and started started more while bailing out banks at home. I think it’s going to be more of that, because that’s “stability”
At this point I just want the pharmacies having my meds for the next 4 years. The economy depends on millions of interactions on a global scale and disruptions mess that up.
I have a very, very low bar
You’re literally opposing the existence of an independent judiciary, which is a fairly important thing for a liberal democracy.
If this is what independent looks like it doesn’t seem to be working, or you and I have very different objectives.
No, it’s possible that there needs to be some kind of reform, but the solution is certainly not to make the judiciary entirely subservient to the executive.
The judges are free to take endless bribes and rule themselves above the law- and enact the will of businesses over that of normal humans, to our collective detriment. At least my proposal has a clear connection to a popular will, you just think that an actual democracy getting to enact the will of the people would be a bad thing, and that reactionary judges with life terms are something that can be reformed away rather than dealt with directly. I welcome your proposal.
At least my proposal has a clear connection to a popular will …
That in no way, shape or form makes it the right thing to do.
Maybe I just don’t have an appreciation for what an “independent” judiciary is for when it’s never seemed to be anything other than an instrument for the wealthy in my lifetime.
If you don’t want a supreme court, then just say that. Having one that is directly correlated with the party in power at any given time is the same thing as just directing questions to the party in power, so why pretend.
It’s a deeply reactionary institution, I support anything that makes a mockery of it.
Associating SCJ with presidential term will increase SC politicization far more than it already is. That’s all the US needs is another Donald term but with 9 conservative justices that may or may not answer to him.
Exactly. Same reason why we cannot let presidents put directors of central banks whenever.
However a term length seems reasonable.
Yep. Term limits and an enforceable code of conduct are the obvious solutions.
Could give the justices 18-year terms, with a new justice appointed every 2 years. That way every presidential term gets to appoint 2 new justices, 4 justices if they win a second term.
The Republicans have spend literal decades building the courts up so they can ignore Congress and legislate from the bench. They now have the power they’ve wanted for so long.
They’re never going to give that up. Ever. :(
