Can you imagine the screaming from Republicans if the spouse of a liberal judge met with Obama when he was president to discuss issues? This Republican Party raises hypocrisy to new levels
13
A Jew or Negro shouldn’t want to join a club or live in a neighborhood where they aren’t wanted, because of “...the rules of good taste.”
A young lady shouldn’t want to become a scientist/engineer/lawyer, because of “...the rules of good taste.”
That’s the same garbage justification you used to hear 60 years ago, and now Linda Greenhouse uses it for the same reason: Because she has no better one, and her real objection is a sure loser—personal prejudice, in this case against Ms Thomas’s politics.
Well, I don’t agree with Ms Thomas’s politics either, but on this one, Ms Greenhouse should have gone with her first impulse, “Let Ginni be Ginni,” and left it at that.
1
About Justice Ginsburg—Canon 5 of the Judicial Code for federal judges specifically bars the behavior she engaged in when she spoke about then-candidate Trump,
https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#f
And the Justice did a lot more than call Trump “a fake.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html
For Linda Greenhouse to minimize the seriousness of Justice Ginsburg’s error in an effort to bolster her complaint against Ms Thomas is, at best, disingenuous.
“To digress, in the summer of 2016, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicly labeled Donald Trump — accurately, but as she promptly conceded, indiscreetly — a “faker.” How does this indiscretion rank with Ginni Thomas’s immersion in right-wing politics?”
1
The old axiom "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" comes immediately to mind...
1
A NY Times story dated Feb 16 1982 illustrates how many active Supreme Court Justices (not spouses) gave advice to Presidents. Unclutch your pearls.
1
Honestly, it's not so much that Ginni's outspoken, but, rather, that she speaks out--face to face--only to those who already agree with what she believes; that's what I find very unfortunate about her political activities. We're all to silo'd and insulated from each other--and, consequently, breathing our own air. This spouse of a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, all spouses of said court, and all Justices of said court, should be building bridges by engaging with people with a view to opening minds, not battening down the mental hatches.
3
I think this loud mouth has been crossing the line for years. And her husband does not speak aloud in the most relevant courtroom in our land. Perhaps she can quiet down.......
2
Interesting that Linda mentions that Ms. Thomas was in earlier years a capable lawyer and lobbyist for a far right group.If still true it raises the question of how the capable and the profoundly ignorant can enjoy a life together. Reminds one of the quite unequal marriage of the greatest mathematician in history Srinivasa Ramanujan.
She is dangerous!
1
There is no special limit on what the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice can do or say. However, the natures of the marital relationship and of the Court ought to ethically require recusal if the spouse is publicly identified with some side in an issue that is to be decided by the Court. The key word in that sentence is "ethically". It appears that there is no Code of Conduct enforceable against the Justices of the Supreme Court. Each Justice has the power to determine whether he or she can beach rules applicable to all other Federal judges. See: https://abaforlawstudents.com/2018/02/21/supreme-court-justices-recusal-code-conduct-united-states-judges/
See also: the Code of Conduct for United States Judges - https://www.uscourts.gov/file/2908/download
and the proposed changes to that code - https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
1
When Chief Justice Roberts said there are neither Obama judges nor Trump judges, I did not think he was right or naive. First, he could not be right because some judges are of that sort. Second, he was not naive, he was lying. He wants the public to respect the Supreme Court, of which he is the chief. And part of the reason may be that he is, for a Supreme Court justice, unusually attentive to politics. It's not unusual for a judge to be ideological, but commentators (including Republican ones) have suggested Roberts can be swayed by the electoral effect on the GOP, for example in his surprise defense of the Affordable Care Act. And to be effective in furthering his party, the Supreme Court must be seen as not partisan.
2
The outrage here hinges on the presumption that the SCOTUS is not a political party/plum. Or at least that the people with the best judicial backgrounds in their respective parties are given priority for the bench.That might happen occasionally, (see Obama's choice of Garland) but it is hardly the norm. SCOTUS is just another partisan faction charged with 'winning' by the people who wrangle their appointments. Justice Taney would fit in well today.
1
How odd, that Linda Greenhouse finds Scalia's tortured tautological reasoning -- "“The people must have confidence in the integrity of the justices and that cannot exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible by the slightest friendship or favor, and in an atmosphere where the press will be eager to find foot faults” -- persuasive.
Scalia argued that to recuse himself would be an acknowledgement of what everyone knows to be true -- that judges and justices are susceptible to influence and prejudice. So, to avoid making that concession, he can't recuse himself, appearances be damned.
And this, after Bush v Gore?
2
Loving v Virginia comes to mind when she and her band of hate filled women drag on as to why women and transgender persons should not serve our country.
6
Ginni is a disreputable representative of a morally repugnant cause, mere hawker of rancid fruit.
7
As this dismanteling and dissassembling in the political sphere from witrhin has gone on most of my political life, is it any suprise the same proces emerging so distinctly in the justice sphere? While you hope Justice Roberts can be the one to put his finger in the dyke. I am far less sanguine since his own aligned bretheren are speadily removing bricks that hold the water. The role of a spouse is hardly worth mentioning: we know where this is heading anyway.
This reminds me of Tipper Gore and the Washington Wives in the 1980s. Women who used their husbands positions of power to enforce their un-elected views on the rest of us.
I don't see how Ginni Thomas's lobbying is any different or any less distasteful.
3
The far right has proven that they are ignorant of boundaries. There is no longer they WON'T cross. They have turned our government into a circus, and taken the most powerful nation on Earth, and turned it into the laughingstock of the world.
In the meantime, Russia and China are working together, with the help of our president, to undermine that power.
1
So you don't think that a woman should have opinions or a life outside of her husbands? She has her own opinion and should be allowed to advocate for them should she decide to do so. After all no one, especially the NYT, ever thought that Hillary should have kept quiet and been a dutiful wife just because her husband was the president.
3
@Scott A Big difference -- Hillary Clinton is not a fringe dweller who wants to drag America backwards.
3
The cover that Scalia provided for Cheney goes to the heart of the matter. Impunity at the executive level has bred a culture contempt for fair play and worship of power that is the current Republican party. Appearance and optics are for wimps.
4
Mrs. Clarence Thomas is the best qualified person to make her personal positions known to the pouts.
1
Those who sentimentally eulogize George H. W. Bush should remember that in 1991 he thought Clarence Thomas was "the most qualified person in America" for a Supreme Court seat, despite clear evidence that Thomas was an inveterate sexual predator
And in the 27+ years since then, Thomas has displayed his less-than-mediocre legal mind and credentials, while proudly following so many Trump appointees into the same ethics pit.
9
Actually I still can't believe Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court in the first place.
11
What garbage. Ruther Bader Ginsberg during the election was as partisan as any justice has been since the days of Abe Fortas and LBJ. In fact, Fortas never publicly partisan while on the bench. She should have resigned from the bench just on the basis of the appearance of impropriety.
Yet here, the so-called liberal NYTIMES is raising criticisms of a woman with her own voice. Why is Mrs. Thomas singled out? She is a conservative, and conservatives, in liberal eyes, have no rights.
3
Another homophobic right-wing activist. Mrs. "Justice" Thomas sickens me. But so does he. We're not going to keep America great with people like this in positions that go against everything the Constitution and Bill of Rights stand for.
6
I’m more curious if Ginni Thomas knows any transgender people.
And does she have any actual stats on transgender people in the military?
1
I snooped around to see if any of the president's cabinet members had a dog, but came up empty. I did learn, however, that the Pence's do - Harley. They also have two cats plus a rabbit named Marlon Bundo. Oh, and they have a beehive, apparently. So I nominate Pence, head of the cheerleading squad.
“The people must have confidence in the integrity of the justices,” Justice Scalia wrote, “and that cannot exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible by the slightest friendship or favor, and in an atmosphere where the press will be eager to find foot faults.”
The press has always been looking for "foot faults" because from the beginning of time those in power have been susceptible to the entreaties of their friends. When the public trust is part of the equation, the faith of the citizens in their government can only be served when public officials stand down if their pals and relatives come before them in their capacities as public servants.
Judges and other officials are human and may believe a particular situation is compromising without the Fourth Estate issuing a wake up call. So all I can see with Scalia's position are excuses for not bothering with the self examination and self criticism normal people put themselves through to double check their own behavior, a must qualification for a public servant.
The appearance of corruption was important to the nation's founders and the general public of revolutionary America. They saw 18th century gift giving, quid pro quo diplomacy as corrupt and wrote the Constitution's Emoluments Clause as a brake on inevitable human greed.
As to the Thomases: Marriages are, among other things, legal financial partnerships . So how can a spouse's employment or public advocacy not appear or be a conflict?
2
Its inconceivable that that the active and partisan work and importuning of the President by Justice Thomas' wife would not influence, directly or indirectly, the justice's views on matters about which his wife cares about and advocates so passionately would not influence Justice Thomas, directly or indirectly. And, of course, what is President Trump to take away from such importuning from the wife of a justice of the Supreme Court? I think that I know. Let's be real, folks, this is clearly crossing over the line.
6
Thomas is by far the worst legacy left to America by Bush the First.
15
As a black man, I never though much of Justice Thomas as a man, much less as a black one. Now I think even less of him and his wife.
96
Her public conduct (and his in acquiescing at the least in it) is appalling.
And conservatives have been supposed to be especially concerned about tradition, norms of behavior, appearances, etc.
3
I believe Mrs. Ginni Thomas is free to exercise her rights. And for their relationship to be whatever they wish it to be.
Moreover, were it not for her using her rights to (one supposes) their full limit, we could not possibly know how it is possible for the extreme (no pun) black-and-white positions of Judge Thomas to be understand as the more balanced of the two.
Naturally, saying such does not mean that Judge Thomas, whose voice matters enormously as compared to his spouse and any of us, has much to offer us other than to suffer with his concepts of treating the rough and brief 18th century language of ours founders as crystal clear, sacrosanct, and time-invariant.
1
'Good Taste' - what does this actually mean? I think of it as "Flavour of the Month".
1
The problem isn't that Ginni Thomas is hanging out with the most reactionary, hateful groups in American society. Nor is the problem that she and her husband share the same venomous right-wing values, legal, financial, moral & spiritual.
The problem is that too many people opposed to Finni & Clarence Thomas are ignoring them.
It's not necessary to defame Ginni & Clarence Thomas; it's not necessary to insult them. It's only necessary to expose them for what they are. A bit like turning over a rock.
11
if we can assume that spouses share ideas, it says a lot about Justice Thomas.
7
Of course it crosses the line. The real question is why conservatives always get away with things like this, while Democrats are nailed to the floorboards.
14
For that matter,
Did the anti-Trump comments from Justice Ginsburg in 2016 violate ethics rules by sitting justices?
We will never know.
And it certainly won't be analyzed in these pages or by this columnist.
Such a critique would violate the understanding that these columns will only attack conservative justices.
4
It doesn't matter what Mrs. Thomas says or do. Justice Thomas is going to vote predictably and reliably in accordance with her extremist beliefs. That's why they married each other.
7
Thank you Ms. Greenhouse for contributing to enlighten us with your thoughtful pieces regarding the SC (always!). I would like to add, that there was another spouse who behaved rather poorly: Mr. Alito's wife. I remembered how, once, she left in tears, like an opera madonna the room --during one of her husband's confirmation hearings--because she was "hurt" by the great questions that were asked to her husband and the poor judicial answer and platitude of her husband's answers. Again, thank you for all your knowledge and thoughts regarding the so-called independent branch of our government.
6
Another darn good article. Thank you.
Your point that Ginni's "lobbying" against other people's rights is in poor taste and against the usual norms of behavior is well stated. However, it becomes more obvious with each passing day that government including the Supreme Court is broken and the people behind the violated rules and norms can no longer be trusted.
The use of Scalia's quote in your article sums up perfectly the current state of concern for many Americans. I will post the quote here ending it a bit soon but appropriately. '“The people must have confidence in the integrity of the justices,” Justice Scalia wrote, “and that cannot exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible…’.
3
One would think that Ginni Thomas would have a little more sympathy for same-sex couples and transgenders. Not so long ago, her marriage would have been illegal in many states.
206
I just said this! Loving v Virginia.
13
@Roberta Sympathy and empathy are not the strong suits of the self-righteously religious who act out their authoritarian instincts to zealously engage in politics and maintain their own blind PC.
15
Mrs. Thomas is certainly entitled to her opinions. One can probably assume that part of the reason Clarence Thomas is married to her is because he also shares some of her opinions, which is illustrated by his voting record on the Court. I personally find her political stance very disturbing - but then I find many of Justice Thomas' votes disturbing as well. I think they are probably just like minded people.
7
Absolutely! Her actions seriously compromise the necessary separation of the the judiciary from the legislative and executive branches of government. It is essentially unconstitutional.
4
"Do the political activities of Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife cross a line? ... What she’s violated are longstanding norms of behavior ..."
Such longstanding norms of behavior are, as it turns out, part of the vital machinery of our democracy. Mr. Trump and his Trump McConnell Republicans have made this truth self-evident.
Ms. Thomas explicitly lobbied the president to take away opportunity for women and to take away women's rights. She lobbies against each and every manifestation of decency or humane behavior.
The Supreme Court is a non-partisan, co-equal, independent branch of government. In that regard, it cannot afford any appearance of impropriety whatsoever.
As Scalia said, "The people must have confidence in the integrity of the justices." In order to do its work, the court must have the faith and trust of all Americans.
In the light, the Kavanaugh nomination was a travesty on several accounts. The histrionic, dishonest Kavanaugh demonstrated neither sobriety nor veracity.
The Democratic House must initiate a proper, thorough investigation, with the assistance of the FBI, into Dr. Ford's credible claim that Mr. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.
As noted here, conservatives have often called for recusals under circumstances that closely parallel those of Ms. Thomas.
Ms. Thomas and her gaggle of extremists have crossed many lines. They do not know how to exercise restraint of any kind. They couldn't care less about the Constitution or our democracy.
5
Judge Walker should have stepped aside as his ruling
did favour what wished to do and later, in fact did.
Judges should always be above all suspicion,
another Judge can always be found.
I am old enough to remember when the Democrats told us to elect a President because with his very smart wife in tow it would be "two for the price of one!". I saw no heads turned when an unelected first lady was given a powerful policy portfolio to manage. And I saw no liberal head turn when that former first lady's husband made money while she was in office doing business, excuse me, charity, with nations with which she had political issues to manage. I am certain that so long as Ms Thomas's views and activism were "correct", the NYTimes would be fine with her advocacy. But as is always the case, there is a whole 'nuther standard for conservatives.
6
I can't get past "working for the United States Chamber of Commerce against passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act"
Who could be against family leave? Ugh.
14
She has a right to her opinions and crusades.
He should be recusing himself, though, from cases that touch them.
6
It is quite remarkable that you should repeat an argument without even addressing Linda's counterargument. Who is the judge who is less biased in a defense of traditional marriage matter? Not the traditionally married one because she might have a stake at defending her type of marriage, as Linda points out. The never married judge might be biased against any kind of marriage as might be the divorced one. Hence either none is suited to judge or all are, is it not?
1
Come on, Linda! We all know Justice Thomas can be counted on to be an impartial interpreter of the Constitution. We know conservative justices have no agenda other than interpreting the constitution the way the Founders intended it to be understood. All those connections to wealthy, powerful interests are pure coincidence.
6
This is almost the definition of a dangerous liaison, and the danger is to us. Clarence Thomas sits on the Supreme Court, Ginni Thomas has access to and lobbies lawmakers at the highest levels.
Influence should be absent from Supreme Court decisions, and surely that is impossible in this circumstance. Both are ardent conservatives, bent on undoing personal and civil rights legislation that affects millions of Americans.
Ginni Thomas cannot be barred from her right wing activism, but even if she were, she would still share Clarence Thomas's opinions, beliefs, intentions and would still seek to influence him, which would still impact his decisions on the court.
The real problem began long ago, when Thomas was confirmed to the court despite evidence that should have barred him from serving.
11
So the wife of a Supreme Court Justice is lobbying the president on issues that will most likely come before the court, of which her husband will have to make a decision. Interesting. Can't you hear the hullabaloo if Michelle had lobbied Beyer on the Affordable Care Act? Hopefully Roberts will require Thomas to recluse himself on any of the issues which his wife is inserting herself.
9
Of course everyone is entitled to policy opinions based on their personal belief or bias. However it is not unreasonable to expect opinions of spouses of legislators and jurists who have over policies to be tempered and not provided with disproportioned influence based on their spousal status. That is especially the case with a SC Justice. Would Mrs. Thomas be invited to the oval office if she weren't the spouse of a SC Justice?
3
It takes an inhuman amount of denial to believe that Judge Thomas's views are significantly different from those of his wife. Judge Thomas also speaks at ultra-conservative venues such as the Federalist Society.
Such strongly held beliefs necessarily influence judicial rulings.
1
I dunno. My partner's (of more than 45 years) political opinions are at times diametrically opposed to mine. Should that be the criterion for allowing her to lobby if I were a JSCOTUS (nice phantasy)? I better not even perish the thought. I find it also slightly condescending to assume that zealot that Ginni Thomas is, she could not command comparable attention in the WH. There are enough wingnuts who find Individual-1's ear without being partner to a SC Justice.
She can do what she wants as long as she doesn't try to influence her husband in his decisions on her purely partisan ideas. (Probably too late, I know. They're probably two peas in a pod anyway.)
Frankly, I'm up for the next Dem president appointing a few more justices to the bench, with a higher number, total. That would have the effect of effacing people like Thomas, who are so very polarized. Merrick Garland should be the first choice...
3
@Lynn Taylorn Oh, court packing like FDR tried and what is done whenever a leader is easing his country into a dictatorship. Sounds like what occurred in Venezuela.
1
I notice that when right-leaning justices have a conflict of interest, they don't recuse themselves.
When the more liberal justices have a conflict, they do recuse themselves.
Never mind "good taste". This is just plain wrong.
There is no way to stop the current Republican power brokers, bought and paid for by wealthy self-interest, from building up more and shutting out the majority of the American people.
Property rights, only for the wealthy: check
Vote cheating in all its variety: check
etc. etc. etc.
12
The Devil is in the details. Decisions come with lengthy opinions filled with nuance and secondary effects. We all know Thomas's positions independent of his wife. My concern is her influence on her husband during the negotiations that are needed to form the majority. What did he/she get for his vote?
Of course, there is the problem with all the money she makes working for those lobbying firms and think tanks. It wasn't until a few years ago that Thomas included his wife's earnings in his yearly financial reports.
5
Rule #1 for legal practitioners is to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Mr. Thomas is the highest judge in the land - that rule applies to him 1000 fold. So - Ms. Thomas is welcome to her opinions, to have employment that was in no way procured by nepotism or the hope of influence and to live her life however she chooses - as long as she avoids the appearance (and ideally avoids altogether) impropriety. Her recent activities have done just the opposite.
17
Historically, those who share Ms. Thomas's religious orientation have condemned marriages like hers. It is the abandonment of her religion's way of reading the Bible that allowed her marriage to be recognized in all states. But she has no sympathy for those who abandon her religion's way of reading the Bible in other areas.
Sad.
15
@sdavidc9 You do not know the Bible and are manufacturing facts. In fact, one of Moses' four wives was black.
1
I don’t begrudge a well connected lobbyist from using all of the means at her disposal to maximize influence over her audience, even though her target is famously malleable with flattery. That is why lobbyists get paid the big bucks. I do however have a problem with the Executive Branch lacking a basic understanding of ethics and decorum.
3
family members I assume will always have some influence on family members who are in important positions.
The question is whether that influence is sponsored by a special interest - plenty of influence peddling family members on the record.
When there are back doors or hidden influences to power there will be trouble - and it is unlikely to be for the good of the American people.
Sunshine. Sunshine. Sunshine.
2
Donald Trump crossed the line by meeting with a Supreme Court justice's wife, whose views are extreme and in line with right-wing conspiracy groups.
Trump complained when he discovered that Rod Rosenstein's wife was a Democrat. He insisted that Rosenstein couldn't be impartial because of this. What about Ginni Thomas, Mr. Trump?
17
By refusing to abide by longstanding rules and norms, Republican's, who can't stand laws and regulations, have been showing us these past three years that that is exactly what we need more of, now.
Republicans--you have brought it on yourselves.
3
My spouse and I chose each other in part due to shared values--political, religious, ethical, moral--and so I am not (surprisingly to myself) particularly concerned about the Thomas's influence on each other. They are--and likely would be separately--true believers in their conservative causes. I disagree deeply with both of them it seems but find fault with their positions on issues rather than on Mrs. Thomas's right to assert her influence on her husband and on others.
Said another way, I wouldn't trust Justice Thomas with the Constitution no matter his marital status or activities of his spouse, and I would passionately oppose Mrs. Thomas and her lobbying regardless of whether she as married to a Supreme Court Justice.
159
Whether it is Ginni Thomas or some other spouse or significant other expressing an opinion it is silly to think that Supreme Court judges are not influenced by those around them.
How they interpret the question before them is not just how they read the law but is also the result of their entire life experiences. How could it not be so? For that matter how has it not always been so.
None of us come to our opinions through some Spock-like process. Opinions are the result of our existence.
As to the "good taste" referred to. What exactly is good taste. It seems to be that has evolved over time. Otherwise how to explain the "good taste" of the Dick Van Dyke show that required a married couple to appear to sleep in separate beds to today's television standards?
20
Justice and Mrs. Thomas will soon be decomposing on the ash heap of history. So will I. So will we all. Progress will continue despite the foolishness of Justice and Ms. Thomas and others of that ilk. The arc of history is long but it bends toward justice.
By the way, I'd like to know Ms. Greenhouse's take on the case of Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992). I'd like to know her thoughts on how it is that Justice Thomas was part of a 5-4 decision vacating a kiddie porn conviction for claims of government entrapment. This would have been within a year of Justice Thomas's elevation to the Supreme Court, with Long Dong Silver still fresh in the public mind. The hypocrisy and partisanship of this justice and his wife are stupefying. Shame on the both of them.
4
Wow! The trolls are out! Ms. Greenhouse is a fair and intelligent journalist. The letters are in support of a person, Genni is a serious problem and as Ms Greenhouse says lacks taste. Discernment. Class. There is a difference between intelligent and smart. Smart lacks discretion and brags its smart. Genni? Clarence? Peas in a pod of arrogance and speciousness.
Gay marriage will destroy the nation. Idiots.
2
Possessing a vagina does not mean it is incumbent upon all of us to assume that the possessor is only motivated by good, any more than possession of the opposite organ implies that the person is in pursuit of evil.
3
This column is a cop-out. Basically, things are so bad, her actions fit right into the times. So superficial. What ever happened to right and wrong?
I usually look forward to Greenhouse's columns. What would cause her to write one like this?
Ginni Thomas's wacko conspiratorial beliefs, like her husband's rock-hard reactionary conservatism, seem so improbable that one might wonder if they're Russian moles.
4
One tries to read all sides in order to attain a decent level of intellectual honesty --- however --- the paradox of this column is staggering.
Ms Greenhouse would never -- never -- write this article about someone from the opposite side of the political spectrum.
It's sophomoric and elevates the national divide.
3
What a perfect couple, a sex abuser & a homophobe.What God puts together, let no one break apart.
6
Linda, what you are really saying is that women should stay home and bake cookies and not follow their own career paths.
Shame on you.
2
Another week another NYT fluff piece trying to paint our laughably compromised supreme court as functional.
1
"So where does all this leave the outspoken Ms. Thomas? She’s broken no rules except the rules of good taste."
In what rule book on the etiquette of good taste did Ms. Greenhouse find the basis for this inane comment?
5
Clarence and his wife are a vacuous pox on normal behavior of power brokers that affect our nations laws
3
All I know is that if it were the wife of a liberal justice the folks in the Right would be screaming bloody murder.
5
Once again, a thoughtful and extremely well-written column by Linda Greenhouse. One of the NYT's best.
As a feminist, I find Ginni Thomas as anti-women as her husband is anti-minority.
4
Hm, NYT, I don't know - is working for Fusion GPS while spouse works for DOJ a problem as well?
What about Dept of State and a spouse in a foundation directly benefiting from it?
Are these family ties "troubling" as well? Apparently they were not illegal, and neither is this.
So the problem here for NYT is not so much the ties but whose ties these are.
2
Being a lawyer, Ginni knows exactly what she can get away with, even as she transgresses not only good taste but also the bounds of partisan advocacy. Having a husband on the Supreme Court, the one who never speaks, adds more weight to her conservative crusade. Her defiant slogan seems to be, "If you don't like what I'm doing, try and stop me."
3
Would you feel the same if other Supreme Court spouses or partners were working on pro choice or pro gay marriage issues?
1
@Gailmd. But are they? Are any Supreme Court spouses attacking teenagers for their beliefs? Trying to intrude on others' sex lives? Peddling unfounded conspiracy theories on Facebook (google the caravan and George Soros)? She's not just some opinionated lady -- she is aggressive and on the fringe. Whataboutism can't apply because there is no parallel.
2
Once again there are a different set of rules for republicans and democrats. If the tables were turned, Fox News and the “freedom caucus” would run the democrats spouses out of town. Taking the high road is yielding us nothing.
2
And John Roberts lets him get away with it. No wonder people call them, not justices, but Republican operatives. Thomas has never deviated from his right-wing, personal agenda and his wife's activities indicate he won't ever. He's still getting even for Anita Hill, meaning he's still nothing but a low-rent liar.
4
This is a hit piece by a liberal activist who is not even an attorney. The attacks on Thomas have not ceased ever since Anita Hill came out of nowhere to tell her tale. Thomas is a rock solid conservative and an African American. The leftists cannot suffer this.
3
This sort of behavior by a supreme court judge should not be tolerated. Thomas should be removed from the court, not only for his own opinions that support fascism but for those of his wife. When the democrats take the Senate in 2020, Thomas's impeachment should be on the work list.
1
But RGB can criticize candidates for POTUS????
3
What is missing from this very thoughtful analysis is what it really means for Ginni Thomas to be "an activist on the far-right fringe of the Republican Party" who meets with Trump as leader of a "Hard-Right Group."
The mainstream G.O.P. has lost all regard for the rule of law. Upon realizing their toxic brew of the Southern Strategy, Gerrymandering, and white identity politics, all wrapped up in Lee Atwater's coded language, no longer guaranteed victory, Republicans decided to blatantly steal power in North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Once subversion of American democracy no longer sufficed to allow a minority to overcome, subdue, and impose their will on the majority, the mainstream G.O.P. renounced democracy. (David Frum had correctly stated: "If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.")
This is now the mainstream G.O.P., but Ginni Thomas's "far-right fringe of the Republican Party" is where you go to destroy all our laws and advance conspiracies about Mexicans, gays, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Socialists, women, and the U.S. government; it is where you go to have a beer with the American Nazi Party.
The "Hard-Right Group Led by Ginni Thomas" embraces all these things. It means a spouse of a Supreme Court Justice isn't simply expressing an opinion, she's actively working to destroy the US Constitution and our Republic, and create a far right-wing authoritarian regime.
3
John Marshall Chief Justice 1801 to 1835
Louis Brandeis Associate Justice 1916 to 1939
Oliver Wendell Holmes Associate Justice 1902 to 1932
Hugo Black Associate Justice 1937 to 1971
Earl Warren: 1953–1969
Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965)
Thurgood Marshall (1967-1991)
And a Supreme Court Judge who enjoys pornography, Clarence Thomas (1991-Current) WONDERFUL!
1
Of course it does. Except for Republicans and the right wing in the US, there are no lines at all. The ends justify the means. So it is fine for them to have a sexual harasser or a drunken frat boy rapist on the Supreme Court, as long as they get to roll back minority voting rights or restrict a woman's right to choose. I wish Democrats would learn that lesson, but that is why they keep getting rolled. At least Speaker Pelosi is offering a strong resistance to the forces of evil.
3
Hey!, if she could live with him and defend his actions all these years, then I’m gonna’ go ahead and assume that like most other far-right extremists her moral compass reads: “N”, “S”, “E” and “$$$$”. They’re not exactly the Ginsburgs, are they?
1
Ginni and Clarence are a Freudian mess. All their actions and decisions stem from the confirmation hearing where those nasty feminists and leftists pegged Clarence for the rogue he is.
Remember, Ginni called Anita in 2010, and left a message asking Anita to apologize.
The hateful wrath grows like a parasite, constantly threatening to overtake the host. The only defense is to cling to the extreme right, as far away from the threat as possible.
1
right wing theocrats have no place in government in a democracy, if we still have one
2
Ginni Thomas is a perfect symbol of conservative Republicanism in America today. She is grotesque.
6
Her later night phone call to Anita Hill is all you need to know about Ginny Thomas, and what kind of person she is. Disgusting and unfit for polite society.
5
When some questioned the involvement of Hillary Clinton in Bill’s time in the White House or Michelle Obama during Barack’s terms, it was denounced as misogyny. Yet when a conservative spouse has a voice, it’s too much?
26
@From Where I Sit
Because a President is supposed to be political and First Ladies are expected to get involved in politics or advocate certain causes.
On the other hand, a Supreme Court justice is supposed to be independent and not let partisan politics or political affiliation affect his/her job (though it's debatable whether that is actually the case). Thus, when Thomas' wife is a very prominent and extreme conservative lobbyist advocating for issues that routinely appear before the Supreme Court --gun rights, abortion, religious liberty, etc.--there is a strong appearance that Thomas--one of 9 justices deciding some of the most important issues of the day--will be swayed by his wife's position.
There is a reason why spouses of other justices do not get involved in lobbying or overtly political causes -- because it makes the Justice appear biased. The Thomases doesn't care. Whether you agree with that or not is one thing, but to claim this is the same as Michelle or Hillary is incorrect.
I also find it hard to believe that conservatives would be OK with Sotomayor or Kagan's spouses being a prominent lobbyist for Planned Parenthood or some other "leftist" organization. But apparently its OK when Republicans do it
75
@From Where I Sit
Entirely different circumstance. Is this article criticizing Melania Trump? How about Laura Bush?
(The answer is a resounding "No.")
21
@From Where I Sit, putting aside the fact that neither Hillary or Michelle did anything nearly as odious as claiming the Parkland survivors are a threat to our very country, the fact that you think it is wise comparing the spouse of an elected official to the spouse of a judge who is supposed to be impartial does not send quite the message I think you want it to.
39
Thomas's impact on the court is simple, Please tell me ONE important opinion he has ever written? He will go down in history as a blundering idiot who molested his way onto the court and replaced Marshall.
The best that can be said of his Conservative Court is that it will be like the "pre Civil Way" court and over the next 100 years have most, if not all, their opinions overturned.
They start the idea of "not having law settled".... they can stew in their own juice.
1
Never forget that her husband is but a token for the Supreme Court.
He's there to give the appearance of inclusion, when he's anything but.
The great irony is her kind mostly disparages black people.
I'm quite sure the right wing would like blacks to eliminate gays, and when the job was done, blacks would be re-enslaved.
4
I'm a white woman who has been married to my black husband for almost four decades. I read about Ginni Thomas's meeting with the president and found myself wondering: How can she be one-half of a mixed-race marriage, yet still believe women and transgender people should not serve in the military or that same-sex marriage is damaging the country? Does Ginni Thomas ever stop and think that it was probably people much like her who prevented mixed marriages from becoming legal not so very long ago? Why does she think we should respect her choice for who to marry and not offer that same respect to people of the same sex who wish to marry?
7
@MJmich 'Conservatives' such as Ms Thomas are so hateful. What business is it of hers who anyone else marries? Women have been successfully serving in the military for some time. Why would she (still) be harping on preventing them from doing so?
2
I tremble at the thought of disagreeing with Linda Greenhouse, but in this case I must do so. While it may be that privately-stated opinions of a judge's spouse, child or even close friend will
have more of an effect on the jurist's decision than the public lobbying of Ginni Thomas on her husband, the public's perception of the court will be damaged if his votes closely correlate with the positions for which she has advocated. And in these times, when the Supreme Court's reputation is as low as it has been since the Civil War, that should be enough--although I am sure it will not be--for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from matters on which she has stated positions to persons in power or the media.
Sadly, Justice Roberts appears to be the sole remaining American citizen who believes that there are no Obama judges and no Trump judges. The Court has been far to the right for decades now (Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, etc.most recently) and with 4 hard right justices planted by minority elected Presidents, the Court will continue to operate well outside the common good. God help us if RBG's health fails her and us.
3
“She’s broken no rules except the rules of good taste. What she’s violated are longstanding norms of behavior.”
The implication here is that rules of good taste are neither legal nor ethical in nature. But what in the world are “longstanding norms of behavior” if not ethical norms? She has clearly violated ethical standards, and having done so Justice Thomas should consider recusing himself. Yes, it appears that judicial ethics—ethical standards laid out in writing—do not enjoin Thomas to do so. But unwritten norms of ethics are operative and can be just as obligatory. You can follow all the (written) rules and still be wrong.
At the very least, the burden of proof would be on Ginni and Justice Thomas to demonstrate how and in what ways she had NOT violated ethical norms.
2
For a president who appoints his daughter to a senior government role, and arranges for his dilettante son in law to be involved in sensitive security matters, it would never occur to him that letting a Supreme Court Justice’s spouse whisper in his ear for lobbying is totally inappropriate and ethically dubious.
7
Reagan, Bush 43, Cheney, Trump and their followers have sadly made clear over time that the virtuous values this nation has espoused and was respected for in the past, are now truly nothing more than myths. They and their followers have done a good job of destroying the credibility of Christianity too.
4
I watched the Thomas nomination hearings but I am not an America. Many Canadian Supreme Court hearings are televised and since I have no interest in hockey I am free to enjoy the Supreme Court hearings which determine justice not law.
"Justice Thomas" is a bad joke. He is unfit for the bench both because of his lack of integrity and his lack of understanding that the great sophist Antonin Scalia so well obfuscated with his Supreme prejudice that justice must seem to be done.
In 1776 6% of Americans and Canadians lived in urban environments and today over 80% are either urban or suburban. Two hundred and forty years ago Franklin and Jefferson argued whether the constitution should have a rural or urban prejudice.
America is in need of renewal that protects all its citizens and Mr Thomas and his wife are both an immediate danger and imperil the continuation of the greatest experiment in human evolution that ever was. Less than 30% of America's population controls the US Senate and the Thomases seek to have the 1% control everything. The Trump administration lays open how dysfunctional the American system is and as my wife and I wish there was an English language libretto for what transpires in the Washington opera we still wonder whether it will be a comedy or a tragedy.
When Mr Thomas is on the bench and Mrs Thomas represents the interest of a loud vocal minority tragedy seems to be the likely outcome of this entertaining but confusing opera.
4
It's not all that much of a problem as long as you believe the Thomas' aren't on speaking terms. Chances of that being the case are minimal, since he never says anything and she, apparently, can't stop bloviating about (mostly imagined) conspiracy theories.
1
My chief concern is whether presently, or in the past, any advocacy groups or organizations with which Ms. Thomas has been associated with, as an officer or in any official capacity, filed briefs with the Supreme Court, including amicus ones. By the way, didn’t the Times’s previous story on Ms. Thomas reveal that she and her husband were privately entertained by Trump and his wife at the White House? Is this normal? What was discussed at this intimate dinner?
1
Gianni and Clarence are par for the activist conservative course. Deny any sexual harassment and attack the accuser and then proclaim hurt and despair. Find the most vulnerable in our society and work to disparage them and deny them all chances of equal access, while whining about how the most vulnerable make their fortunate lives so hard. How does one find meaning for their own life in hurting others?
3
"But while my feminist sensibilities make me wary of suggesting that Ginni Thomas should not be completely free to embrace her causes and live her life, there’s something troublesome about the unbounded nature of her public advocacy ..."
Yeh -- she doesn't agree with Linda Greenhouse and the New York Times. If she did, she'd be lionized, the biracial nature of their marriage celebrated, and there might even be a movie about the Fabulous GT.
4
That the wife of Clarence Thomas traffics in what many fair-minded people would consider distasteful ways at best should surprise no one. Ginny Thomas trades on her husband’s position to bolster her own views. Ethics, both legal and moral, I believe, are lacking in both Thomases. After all, Clarence Thomas perjured himself to sit on the Supreme Court. And his wife is evidently fine with that.
4
Seriously, folks, this is funny stuff. Think about it: She and several other right-wing, self-righteous and indignant Carrie Nation types visit a thrice-married, woman-grabbing, draft-dodging, tax-cheating, Commie-loving white supremacist to vent their anger over changes to traditional marriage and declining moral principles in our great nation.
Hard to not guffaw at the fact that Thomas's biracial marriage would have been illegal just over a half century ago. Is that irony or hypocrisy or both on her part?
Another media source reported that Trump was speechless during the visit by the angry birds. Were they talking so fast he couldn't get a word in, or did he actually understand the irony of these throwbacks to the Victorian Era asking for help from the instigator of so much of what they detest and determine it was best to just keep quiet?
This is funny stuff.
6
Yes. Just imagine the right wing radio or media if this was a democrat! Remember the outrage over RBG's political comments?
I have several concerns here:
1. So many conflicts of interest in this administration. Somebody could work full time to count them all!
2. For Thomas and Trump to meet for dinners should be VERBOTEN. Full stop. End of story.
3. For the wife to Thomas to take advantage of the access her husband’s role gives her is, to my mind, unethical.
4. Melania was with Trump when he met privately with Putin in Argentina (G20) - without a note taker present. Is Melanie’s now privy to National Security conversations and info? Was she translating for Trump? Does she has a security clearance? Or a translation job?
5. If Melania is privy to private - uncharted - conversations with international leaders and then meets with Clarence Thomas and wife (maybe getting friendly with wife?) over dinner - in the White House - I find the number of conflicts of interest and potential national security risks (from an untrustworthy Trump!) to be extremely worrisome.
To say I am alarmed here is to put it mildly!
2
Accidents of History:
Clarence Thomas is nominated for Supreme Court and confirmed.
Senator Alan Dixon who voted to confirm loses his seat.
Later, Obama is elected to that same seat.
Obama supports the corrupt Hillary Clinton for President. Reasons for picking Hillary over Biden are unclear, except maybe to use her example for his foundation.
Trump, a novice politician, makes several innovative moves, the most ingenious being to announce a list from which he will choose the next Supreme Court Justice.
The list is prepared by among others the wife of Clarence Thomas, one of the leaders of the Heritage Foundation.
Trump fills hundreds of life-time judgeships, including U.S. Circuit Court.
Many of the candidates are former Thomas Law Clerks who were specifically picked because they reflected his judicial philosophy.
For the next 50 years, maybe longer, Clarence Thomas will have a greater influence on American Jurisprudence than any other one American.
One other thing.
Law Students aren’t dummies. They know which side the bread is buttered.
Their parents may be from the draft dodging, free love, Peace Corp generation, but they know that that group came and went with the Clintons and the Obamas.
Big Law Firms “the Establishment” still represent entities raking off of government expenditures or enjoying monopoly rights.
But even they are going to shift because of all the conservative judges they will be facing.
Soon, conservatives law students will be welcomed there.
Nice try Linda -- trying to lay groundwork for Justice Thomas recusal. And you care so much about the court that you are willing to influence it through your opinion column.
Also, curious analogy comparing advocacy of spouse of Justice to RBG calling Trump a faker. Seems one is an actual admission of bias while the other is a tertiary perception of conflict.
2
A superb column from Ms. Greehouse. The political activities by Ginni Thomas have been most troublesome for many years. It would be nearly impossible to imagine her husband, Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, remaining impartial — as Chief Justice Roberts would like us to believe that they are on the Bench to simply "call the balls and strikes," and not to make law.
Given the Court's ill-fated decisions to legitimize Citizens United and granting the radically conservative Congress (at the time) to dispense with The Voting Rights Act because it has worked so well, it has outlived its mission. Yeah, right. That could make sense to a guppy in a fish bowl, but not to anyone with a reasonable capacity for critical thinking.
But this is not the only family problem on the SCOTUS. Justice Neil Gorsuch's mother, Ann Gorsuch, was Reagan's first EPA chief. And she saw it as her duty to conservatism and fielty to energy industrialists to restructure the EPA by firing scientists well-respected in the community of environmental science, and replacing them with industry shills and lobbyists, all while downsizing the department to become unashamedly and completely devoted to the defilers of our wildlands, national parks, coastlines and watersheds.
You get my point, I presume. In the event of any lawsuits brought against mining and drilling operators may come to the Supreme Court. Justice Gorsuch must recuse himself, presuming he shares his late mother's views on the environment.
Speaking of family ties at the Supreme Court: I have read that Anthony Kennedy's son was Trump's banker at Deutsche Bank!
1
I don’t mind the activism of her activism while being Justice Thomas’ wife. What I can’t stomach are her views.
1
Actually Ms. Greenhouse's penultimate paragraph shows that Ms. Thomas is just following the norm.
2
"... at least for those of us who still care about the Supreme Court."
Wow. And that, my fellow citizens, should say it all.
The right has truly destroyed what our nation was and was meant to be. The last nail in that particular coffin was the politicization and thus discrediting of our supreme court... Perpetrated, this time, not by the kleptocratic president and his band of crooks and fools, but by the Justices themselves.
The most unnerving part is the apparent glee with which many of these Justices have dismantled the credibility and perceived impartiality of the court. I assume they are proud of what they have wrought, but for a citizen like myself who has always, quite literally, seen the Supreme Court as our guarantee that things could only go so far in one direction or the other when it came to the guiding principals and subsequent laws of our country, we are devastated. To quote another NYT opinion writer from todays paper: "we are truly hosed"!
1
Some here criticize Linda for defending free speech rights for a judge's spouse.
So what do they plan?
Put a wire on the spouse and hire a monitor to do what? Hit her with a shock for a speech violation, rig a mouth cork app. to stuff in her fry hole for an erroneous word, call 911 to scold?
To pontificate in the public square is as American as apple pie which is what has made America the land of the free more than any other single right we enjoy.
The first amendment does not stipulate that a speech sheriff be designated.
Linda gets it right yet again or else Trump can shut down journalist who speak in a way that upsets his tender sensibilities.
1
I get it. A wife's place is in the kitchen?
What a flagrant double standard! Haven't feminists fought for generations for the rights of wives to have their own careers and views? All of that is conveniently overlooked in this hit job on Ginni Thomas?
Just as bad is Greenhouse's selective indignation. I think she is right to criticize the conservatives who asked Judge Vaughn Walker to recuse himself. But I am still waiting for her repudiation of Sen. Feinstein's questioning of Amy Coney Barrett's fitness for the bench on the grounds of Barrett's religion. Feinstein said to Barrett "the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern."
And while we are on the subject of "longstanding norms of behavior" and conflicts of interest, Greenhouse needs to address the propriety of her own actions like marching in support of abortion and donating to Planned Parenthood while reporting for the NYT on the Supreme Court where abortion was always on the docket and was convulsing the nation.
Have you no shame?
5
@Ian Maitland
Sorry - no-one is saying a wife's place is in the kitchen - in fact this op-ed argues for quite the reverse. The point being made is that a Supreme's wife's place is NOT in this president's office, or dining room.
1
I would be much less troubled by Ginni Thomas's ultra-conservative political advocacy if her husband showed the slightest inclination to ever deviate from those same hard-right partisan positions in his opinions for the court. As it is, it's impossible not to conclude that he is using his justiceship to advance a personal political agenda that he shares with his wife.
222
@Richard's comment underscores how far outside of political, social and legal mainstream the Thomases are. The same can be said of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. At least as worrisome is the impact that the manner of their individual appointments will have in the long term on the legitimacy of the court.
26
@Richard. Are you also troubled by RBG and Sotomajor never deviating from their hard left partisan positions?
1
@Richard--In other words, theirs is a match made in heaven, eh?
1
No, Mrs. THomas's work does not cross a line. Do you question the work of other people's wives?
For example, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's wife was a lobbyist. Several reporters were married to Obama and Clinton administration officials. The list goes one, and on, and on ... I never heard the media question those arrangements.
21
@Liberty hound There are two arguments to be especially wary of and here's how each of them start...(1) "Yes, but that will lead to..." and Liberty Hound's above version of (2) " Yes, but what about...". The Slippery Slope and Whataboutism, 2 classic refuges for those unable to address a question directly.
37
@Liberty hound
Do I ever question the work of other people's wives? Yes, I do. And husbands too.
A working spousal relationship does not exist in a bubble. You come home every night and talk to your spouse about his or her day. They talk to about your day. That's how relationships work. The conversations influence one another in particular personal ways. Otherwise, you wouldn't be married.
Just last night I had to talk through a professional problem with my spouse. Even being made aware of the problem influences my thinking about the subject in question. If a similar topic comes up somewhere else, I'm immediately going to think back to the conversation I had last night. That's how the human brain works.
You need to accept that the judiciary is open to influence just like all other humans. Traditionally, a spouse with a partner in the judiciary goes out of their way to limit any appearance of influencing their partner in a political way. Ginni Thomas does not. That's the norm that has been shattered.
We, as public citizens employing Justice Thomas, have a right to be concerned. His decisions effect our lives. In an ideal world the Supreme Court would look like the oracles from Ray Bradbury's "Minority Report." Even they got it wrong sometimes too. I trust Mr. and Mrs. Thomas far less.
29
@Liberty hound
C'mon now.
"The list goes on and on..."
You want us to pretend that The Supreme Court of the U.S.A. - the last and final arbiter of our laws - who aren't directly elected by the citizenry and who have lifetime appointments - doesn't constitute an entirely unique threat when it comes to issues of independence and impartiality, compared to Senators (whom voters - obviously - can unelect) and spouses who are reporters? Reporters??
Your list may go on and on - but your logic falls short. Whataboutism at it's false-equivalent worst.
51
Honestly, I'd be more concerned if it wasn't already fairly common knowledge how Thomas will vote on every single issue. I am sure Mrs. Thomas is her own woman, but I am also quite sure her husband agrees with her stances and activities and statements. If anything, it gives us a better insight into him. Who's to say who is influencing whom here.
1
Distilled to its essence, Ms. Greenhouse argues that Mrs. Thomas is guilty of an personal ettiquette violation rather than behavior that must trigger recusal by Justice Thomas.
In her passion for her currebt cause, she publically lobbied President to supprt one side in an issue before her husband who must judge the case.
Perhaps the most important and ironic point she makes is that in the Supreme court’s judicial ethics rules, the power of money profit accruing to a member of the justice’s family—but not the justice— demands recusal but the pillow talk pleadings of a justice’s wife do not.
Clearly the influence of a powerful spouse on their partner that is understood by countless divorce attornies and family councelors is lost on the court.
to a mere layman, it often appears that common factors of real life, as actually lived by natural persons, are invisible and irrelevant to certain members of the Supreme Court. that's how they could get to a decision that equates money with speech, with the clear corollary, also seemingly invisible to the Court, that the result is that those with money dominate speech, or with a decision based on the presumption that racial prejudice is now a thing of the past, especially in the States where it was the basis for laws affecting elections. Mrs. Thomas has the same rights of free speech as anyone else, and the right to believe whatever she wants, and even the freedom to try to foist her obnoxious ideas on everyone else. she also has access and status of quite a different sort than most Americans, so perhaps access is speech, too.
1
We like to cling to fantasies in this country. Leader of the free world is one, champion of democracy is another, justice for all one more. The list could go on, but let's go ahead and add "Impartial Justices" to the farce. That the chief justice had to insist that there were no Obama or Trump judges confirms this. They all vehemently declare their impartiality but consistently decide in favor of their political base, with few exceptions. No one argues that some are conservative, and some liberal. And everyone, especially the conservatives who howled about "activist judges" want even more activism as long as it's in their favor. It's time for a wholesale restructuring of this farrago. Pick judges from a blind trust of capable, vetted jurists. Rotate the panel on a term basis. Sever the executive from making any decisions on the choices. If all of this sounds like a fantasy (why not have one that makes sense) then at the very least, abolish the anachronism of the lifetime appointment.
4
... or limited the appointments to the lifetime expected in the late 18th Century.
Certainly justices and their family members have strong political convictions, but impartiality is the cornerstone of our justice system. Isn't it incumbent upon the entire SCOTUS family to maintain at least the appearance of impartiality? Some justices (Antonin Scalia perhaps the most notorious example) attend partisan political events and give speeches in which they air their political views. Not a good look for the court, in my view; nor is it a good look for the wife of a justice to be so aggressively pushing a partisan agenda.
3
@Ray C: Great post. It makes me realize that Ginni is leveraging her husband's bench seat for her own gain, which, unfortunately (for us), is political.
1
The idea of influence through marriage while real and sometimes regrettable .. is not something that can be legislated away.
It's a very slick slope ...
During my brief time in DC I witnessed much more alarming situations where family connections to members of congress, current and past administrations allowed many to hold great sway .. with direct government employment. Often using maiden and family names to hid identities. This I believe a much bigger problem.
-- Ginni Thomas is out in the open.
1
Between Thomas and the Kavanaugh debacle, and the influence of the so-called "Federalist Society," I'm afraid it's too late for Roberts to save the reputation and legitimacy of the Court.
1
Not to mention the daylight robbery that was Bush v Gore.
1
This is an informative and well-reasoned column. I wonder, though, whether it would have been helpful for the writer to at least mention that she herself previously came under scrutiny for supposedly blurring the lines between her work and personal viewpoints. Your own public editor at the time wrote about this in 2006. Yes, the Supreme Court and the press are different institutions. But anything that detracts from appearing objective can be problematic for both. And I say this as a reader who respects the writer's work.
4
There is no daylight between the written conservative Supreme Court opinions Justice Thomas signs and his wife's promotion of the issues in those opinions- Bush v. Gore, Citizen's United, diminishing voting rights and gay rights. This is a concerted effort by the couple to leverage his seat for wealth, and to gain some feeling of legitimacy. Those of us who believe in things like women's rights and equal work conditions, democrats, will forever deny him legitimacy given his controversial path to the court and his failure to correct his image by embracing SCOTUS protocols. Her husband will never author a landmark opinion. He does not engage in oral argument. He is not considered scholarly like most of his peers on the bench, and that must be, in part, due to his embrace of his family's overt promotion of a world view not shared by a majority of Americans. Justice Scalia, agree or not, tethered his legal analysis to original intent of the founders, and could engage in scholarly legal debates to defend his opinions. Justice Thomas and his wife leverage his seat to get paid speaking engagement fees. Due her fees drive his opinions, or his opinions drive her fees? We have no way to know the answer and that is the problem.
4
Ginny Thomas should stick to such relatively harmless activities as leaving angry messages on Anita Hills answering machine and attending Rush Limbaugh weddings with her husband.
7
@Anthony Would you have said the same about Elenore Roosevelt?
2
@mikecody...
Excellent comparison, Mike.
4
Interesting article. I'm hard pressed to think of another Supreme Court spouse who has a public, political profile as does Mrs. Clarence "Ginni" Thomas. Perhaps the others realize that there's a certain decorum that's best to be maintained. That said, I've always been astounded that Justice Thomas eschews the very affirmative action that gave him a hand up, so I guess Ginni Thomas' activities and advocacy should come as no surprise.
2
What a shame clarence is on the court. An embarrassment to the legal profession.
11
When the best you can do to whitewash Ginni Thomas’ clear attempts to use her position as wife of a Republican Supreme Court Justice to influence law and the interpretation of the Constitution is to point to the worst President in American history and say, in effect, “at least she isn’t any worse than him”, you have lost your argument. This isn’t about letting wives of powerful men work, it is about undue influence and corruption.
As for Antonin Scalia, one of the most corrupt and partisan Justices ever seated on the Court, that you fell for his argument to “just trust me” shows a frightening lack of judgement on your part.
2
This first signal I picked up concerning Ginni Thomas' intentional and unapologetically, right wing activist role in her husband's role as a Supreme Court Justice came in 1994 when Clarence presided over Rush Limbaugh's third marriage - which Ginni hosted in their home, serving perhaps as something of a mature maid of honor, or at least flower girl, I guess. Sadly, that marriage faltered but she and Clarence - though he not presiding - were once again front and center as honored guests at El Rushbo's fourth marital try at the Breakers in 2010. Someday, #5 at Mar a Lago?
6
I love how the writer uses terms like "hard" right and "far" right. How does one define "hard" right? Is there a criteria we can check off? So bizarre.
3
@Derek Muller...
Ms. Greenhouse is about as hard left as she can get...
And remember, until recently she was merely the NY Times reporter on the Supreme Court beat. Her law degree is relatively new, and I doubt that she has that much experience in a court of law as one who has actually to stand before a judge and argue her case.
It is easy to tout one's own won-loss record if it is always based on the outcomes of cases argued by others and after the fact.
Point is that Ms. Greenhouse has yet to be the intellectual force behind a ruling of any court of consequence.
3
@Derek Muller
These terms refer to their proximity to "extreme right," otherwise known as fascism.
And if memory serves me well, Clarence Thomas' journey included receiving affirmative action, then being against it after receiving his opportunity, and then being the fox guarding the hen house when he was head of EEOC. Boundaries anybody. I don't think so. How about pure self-serving.
He runs amok, as does Ginni. What's new?
5
@Alan...
Justice Thomas has been quite open on the topic you raise. Perhaps you should review his statements before painting with such broad a brush.
3
@The Owl - Thomas quite open? It took the man what? Over 12 years to actually comment on anything from the bench!
1
On October. 9, 2010 a message was left on Anita Hill's office answering machine by Ginny Thomas 20 years after her husband's confirmation hearing asking for an apology and explanation for what transpired. She did that because she has the power to harass. Had a Senator's son or daughter been killed in the Parkland shooting she wouldn't refer to the survivors activism as a threat to our democracy. Her position as a wife of a Justice gives her legitimacy and power beyond an ordinary member of extreme conservatives. Every marriage has pillow talk and to think her husband does not agree with her warped sense of reality is naive.
3
Linda, I think you could probably do a whole series on Family Ties at the Supreme Court. For the next episode I would like to suggest Anthony Kennedy and his son's role as the Trump family banker at Deutsche Bank.
7
Ginni merely provides one more reason Thomas should never have been approved for the Court.
5
@Mary Pat...
That horse left the barn seventeen years ago.
It's bad enough that you are still fighting the last election, but to fight a nomination that you lost in spite of the patently partisan opposition that long ago is ridiculous;
3
Based on my experience, I believe Justice Roberts is wrong about there not being Republican judges.
And it makes big differences in our lives e.g. climate change. See
https://www.legalreader.com/right-v-wrong-true-story-on-air-pollution/
1
I’ve always believed that Clarence Thomas should never have been appointed to SCOTUS.
5
Answer: of course they do. In fact, they’re so far over the line I doubt she can see it in the rear-view mirror.
2
She and her husband are a perfect pair. Justice Thomas has said that he would never retire to "get even with the liberals." Let Ms.
Thomas talk--she's far right and so is he--what's new?
1
This is disgusting. I wish I had not read about it. It is an abomination in our legal system. I was always wondering where Trump got his 'ideas', always assumed it was just the clowns at Fox, but I guess it goes higher.
2
If RBG can publicly air her political viewpoints, certainly a spouse can.
6
is there a difference between airing a personal opinion and trying to influence the actions of the President, or anyone else in government, by virtue of access?
1
Well, we apparently condone and put up with the family ties in the White House, so, you tell me.
1
Mrs. Thomas is entitled to her opinions, and to express them, and, she certainly has the right to act out her convictions. I believe that ethical considerations require that her activities (like her advice to the President) be publicized, however, so that all of us know what is going on both in public and private. This will help any opposition to determine their responses. Unfortunately, our current President believes that he is not subject to ethical considerations. I believe that both Congress and the Courts need to remind him that he is not above the law. I hope that the voters will keep in mind what is happening and act accordingly.
1
While I feel Mrs. Thomas’ politics and opinions are disgusting, she has a right to express them.
2
I am a retired judge who defends our judicial system and becomes irritated at those inane lawyer jokes we hear so often. Clarence Thomas' existence on the Court is always a stumbling block to my arguments about the the rule of law. I have never heard of anything Ms. Thomas has advocated with which I have agreed.
Nevertheless, if one is going to draw a line on ethical conduct such a line must be clear. Ms. Greenhouse has it right that Ms. Thomas has broken no rules. One cannot make an enforceable rule about "good taste." Further, if gender equality is our goal we cannot make otherwise acceptable conduct illegal just because of marital status.
5
OK, let's just imagine Michelle Obama, as first lady, doing something similar. She couldn't even grow vegetables without being vilified. Ms. Thomas should not have a public, political platform, but if she can't resist, her husband should recuse himself from any and all cases that touch on her "causes."
3
She is part of the push back from the wealthy ruling class against the majority of Americans that want to take of country back in the belief we are E Pluribis Unum.
2
Did we criticize HRC when she used her husband's status to promote her career and policies. Would she have been a Senator, Secretary or Presidential nominee if it weren't for the coincidence of her marriage to Bill? No wonder she endured the indignities Bill put upon her. We need to trust the justices -- if they consistently do the wrong thing we can impeach.
4
@David P Presidents are elected, and if the people don't like what his spouse is doing, they can un-elect him at the first opportunity. SCOTUS judges are not supposed to be political, cannot be un-elected, and have life-time appointments, as in essence do their spouses.
2
Ginni Thomas’ actions are distasteful, but so was Clarence Thomas’ actions before he joined the Supreme Court. These days, it seems that the first requirement for joining the top ranks of the Russian-run US government is to be distasteful. She fits right in.
1
Is this really a tree liberals wanna bark up? Supreme Court is an unelected position. Obviously there are some ethics matters and conflicts of interest that should be closely scrutinized, just like, say, with the FBI or the Justice Department where people's wives might have had an undue partisan influence. However, I see it adversely impacting many more leftist activists if you are gonna consistently press the issue.
3
It's true we don't have Democratic and Republican judges. We have Democratic and extremist judges.
1
If she were advocating open borders or health care for all would we still be questioning her access to a Supreme Court Justice? Likely not.
7
"'The people must have confidence in the integrity of the justices,' Justice Scalia wrote, 'and that cannot exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible by the slightest friendship or favor, ....'"
So we are to believe that Supreme Court justices are unique among human beings in that none among them could be susceptible to the influence of friendship or the granting of "favors"?
4
My answer to Linda Greenhouse's questions about the ethics of the spouse or family member of a Supreme Court Justice publicly advocating for one side or the other on a pending decision by that body would be to ask the question: Would Ginni Thomas and her group had had that meeting with the President if she were not the Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's wife? If the answer is no, or even maybe not, then Ginni Themas was out of line and her husband should have recused himself from the judgement about Transgender members of the military.
7
It would be extremely difficult to imagine that Mrs. Thomas has any conflicting influence on her husband's opinions....In reviewing Justice Thomas' writings, it is clear to determine that they are cut from the same mold, disturbing as it may be.
6
Are there any conservatives with integrity? Mueller and Roberts are probably the only two who I can think of at this moment. The entire movement, though, is seamy, intellectually hidebound and permeated with a seething hatred toward its fellow citizens. I find nothing uplifting or redeeming about conservatism or its adherents. Conservatism is one of the most debasing of disasters to befall this country and yet we keep electing its proponents that I can only attribute to a form of self-hatred on the part of the electorate. I hope and pray that Democrats take the Senate and presidency in 2020 and marginalize the type of sordid politics that Ginni Thomas represents.
5
Very fine essay by Linda Greenhouse, and it illuminates the nebulous area of judicial ethics. I have no qualms with conservatism as a political philosophy, but I have a disagreement with nuts. Ginni Thomas is a nut:
"In a speech bestowing an award on Sean Hannity, the Fox News personality, she warned fellow conservatives against being 'complicit as the left moves its forces across the country.'"
Hannity is a nut who leverages the excitability of the trump base. Thomas does not belong anywhere near him.
I suppose that a Supreme Court justice is entitled to have a nut for a wife; we have a nut in the White House. The nut in the White House has greatly degraded the sense of ethics in this nation. Trump has insulted everyone, including his followers. Thomas's having a relationship to him leads to the same recalcitrant deprecation to get something out of her, and she out of him.
It's all, uh, sleazy. Once, when I was in the Marines, a couple of us requested mast to talk to our commanding officer about one of the housing regulations. "Rules are just guidelines," he responded, but sided with us. Right, nothing except the laws of physics is inviolable. The judicial system is based on a sense of ethics, but that means that trump can corrupt it, as he has corrupted nearly everything else, or, everything else that he's touched.
As Rick Wilson writes, "everything that trump touches dies." Our judicial system is an example why. Trump and Thomas erode our trust in it.
7
What stands out here is that our so-called President Trump gave the wife of a sitting Justice a hearing on issues before the court. The major issue is that he considers himself above the law and in favoring her is trying to affect the outcome of any of his illegalities that may come before the Court. This would be witness, or here judge tampering on a major scale. We have already seen this in his appointments, both to the Supreme Court and Justice Department. And in that there is a foreign adversary connection, not only does this involve high crimes and misdemeanors, but also Treason.
There is also Trump's purported money laundering activities in his real estate dealings and tax evasions before he chose to run. This might also come before the Court. In a sense it already has if Justice Kennedy's son approved the money laundering schemes at the bank.
There is much more than even the appearance of bias here. More like abdication of the rule of law to allow a master criminal to escape Justice.
8
In administrative law there is an adage that a person deciding a case must not only not be biased but not have an apprehension of bias.
Justice Thomas should be recusing himself in cases where his wife's political activities raises a question of an apprehension of bias.
5
Issues of conflict of interest have been narrowly construed in economic terms. The 1993 Supreme Court policy statement limits itself to compensation issues by members of justices' families. But especially in the current environment, when political players take positions that may in fact be detrimental to their economic interests, solely for the gratification of decimating the opposition, such a narrow definition of conflict of interest is naïve.
Look, I realize that expanding the definition would require that only orphan eunuchs (and whatever the female correspondence is) be qualified to serve as justices. But the court has moved so far in the direction of politicized factions that all such connections draw criticism. A large part of the problem rests on the practice of Republican administrations' reliance on Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society vetting of potential judges and justices. I also realize that nominations have not sprung from only the president's mind for decades, and that outside groups have offered lists to Democratic and Republican administrations alike. But the current practice, like much of government outside the legal realm, is so far beyond what reasonable people consider appropriate that it has corroded the respect for the judiciary that was once the last support for democracy.
7
After the Kavanaugh disastrous testimony and the resulting support by GOP and lack of support by Dems, I decided that the SCOTUS does not represent democracy. This man should never have been placed on the highest court of the nation, just as Clarence Thomas should not have either. I remember watching the Thomas hearings years ago and started wondering, but felt that, at least at that time, there was some even handedness on the court. Not any more. McConnell's attempt to stack lower courts in favor of overturning Rowe vs Wade is contemptuous. The Constitution no longer appears to be an important document or direction in this country but instead a document to twist to the preferred result.
7
Justice Clarence Thomas should be so proud to have a wife as smart and enterprising as his wife, Ginni Thomas. They make a wonderful couple and complement one other. Also, Justice Thomas thank you for your wonderful service and please continue to serve your country as a true patriot. There are millions of Americans who support you. I am one of them.
29
@WPLMMT I disagree, do not support or admire in any way Silent Thomas, think his wife has gone WAY over the line, and think they should both leave Washington for obscure retirement.
169
@WPLMMT. This is satire, right? My first reaction to this issue was that, if the two people referred to here had any integrity, there would be no problem. However, on second thought, people in this situation, regardless of integrity, must act in an extreme way to be above suspicion. These two people are so self-righteous that the question is moot.
134
@WPLMMT
I agree, they do compliment each other.
Both are wildly out of touch with reality, dangers to a democratic society and a stain on the reputation and principles of Justice.
169
Marty Ginsburg continued in private practice after his wife became a judge, however, he accounted for the fact that his wife's prominence amplified his voice, in great contrast to, for example, George Conway, another prominent private practice lawyer who only makes headlines on political issues because of his wife's proximity to the president.
On the first point, you should check the fact and correct the article -- he moved from Weil, Gotshal to Fried, Frank when his wife first took the bench.
2
We do not know what occurs behind closed doors, and to speculate provides no answers. However, the confidence in the supreme court instilled in me by law school was badly shaken by Bush v. Gore 531 US 98 (2000).
21
@tbs
Totally agree with this conclusion. We were taught in law school that the Supreme Court does not take 'political cases.' What could have been more 'political' than the outcome of a contested vote in Florida in Bush v. Gore?
Certainly, a truly impartial tribunal could have found a non-political resolution to that case.
Did it even try?
6
@tbs,
Agreed.
The supreme court died the second it appointed awol bush president against the will of the people.
Now under john "5-4" roberts it's positively pornographic.
1
@tbs
Go see the movie VICE and you'll be even more perturbed. The Supreme Court wasn't just manipulated to steal an election - it was deliberately subverted by Dick Cheney.
Did anyone ever imagine that such an overwhelming number of Americans would look upon the supreme court with such distaste.
The anti-democracy movement of the court is what has brought it to this lowly position.
They are no longer accepted as ruling based on the Constitution.
They are expected to find in support of laws to support their own personal prejudices and to support the of oppression of voters and the disenfranchisement of women.
15
"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges.” Justice Roberts, we only have "alt right" judges. The Supreme Court of the United States has become the Supreme Court of the evangelical religious right wing.
14
@Elayne Gallagher
Chief Justice Roberts effort to portray the Republican justices on the Supreme Court as neutral and impartial is truly a hoot. They, indeed, constitute an activist right wing bloc. These five justices have routinely overturned precedents as in the recent Janus decision, have overwhelmingly favored corporations, and have ruled on election laws in a manner that clearly favors Republicans. It may be difficult for people who believe that the rule of law requires neutral and impartial application of rules and a respect for precedent to acknowledge that the court now represents and ideological right wing movement, but any fact based analysis yields that conclusion.
10
It's amazing to see all these self-proclaimed Christians and churchgoers easily forget that, in their books, they are supposed to love their neighbors, all their neighbors.
18
Yes, just having access to Trump is not a privilege available to most people.
Why should it be extended to Mrs. Thomas?
8
This is one more “oh, wow” piece for me to add to Greenhouse’s opinion-treasure-box. That all individual cases cannot be sum up to as a singular case by subtracting details from each (in my paraphrase) reveals a lot in order for the practical operation to be understood. Whether Law or Politics is the issue would not be very different in this case. The latter part of the piece - from the awesome paragraph blanketed with parentheses to the ending paragraph - is the wonderfully good of goodness for the flow carried and consciences, in my view. Honestly, I do not find Gianni Thomas as a particularly controversial figure, especially thinking what powerful people in different fields do with, within and for their family ties. But, the wife of the Justice seems to having presented her special case over time, as said in the opinion piece. Additionally to add one more to my comment here, I did not know the closed-door conferences of Justices can be promptly published in NYT.
The writer conveniently reaches the only plausible conclusion given that there is no remedy in case the opposite was proven. Good time to remind everyone tat our system is broken and all the nice scholarly work that aim to comfort us only serve as temprary remedies for a serious isues that no one seems eager or able to confront. I remember the opened by the self identified “ liberal” Yale Law Professor unconditionally supporting Bret Kavanaugh, we all felt a little better about a decision we do not control unill we saw first hand how unfit in personality and temper this individual is to serve on the highest court of the land.
Kudos for the NYT for serving us a schorlarly analgesic to deal with the pain of reading about partisan justices and their soouses.
4
.... and then there was the time that the IRS got on Clarence for not including Ginny's income for the year, something like half a million dollars.
Oh! I forgot! he protested.
In any decent society this man would never have been made a Supreme Court Justice and Scalia would have been tossed off the first time he mentioned his legal fantasy, Originalism.
I, literally, expect nothing more from this "Supreme" court for the rest of my life.
10
Ginni Thomas is just exercising her privilege, as she has been doing since her husband was elevated to the Court (and probably before). She’s news now because of the tenor of the times. Sadly.
5
It's nearly impossible to speak about her and her husband without resorting to invectives unbecoming of a fair-minded person such as myself. Suffice it to say that I dislike her and her choice for a spouse very very much indeed.
2
Regardless, she sounds like a person with horrible views. Our judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, must not only appear neutral, but be neutral. Republicans don't like that, though. So, for decades they've done everything they can to corrupt our judicial system and make it nakedly partisan and rigged heavily toward the policies and views of the extreme right. Republicans jam through judicial appointments, using lists of true believers from crackpot "think tanks" like the Heritage Foundation. And of course, we've just seen an awful example of that in the apoplectic, beer-loving, possibly sexual assaulting, Brett Kavanaugh.
The great irony, is that despite these blatant, right-wing attacks on our rule of law, Republicans endlessly screech about "activist judges". Well, Republicans are always a case study for psychological projection, aren't they?
3
Ms. Greenhouse, were the Kennedy's a family with whom you would have his same concern? Two brothers in politics, brothers who likely spoke about the issues of the day.
Do you believe spouses of past presidents were not influenced in their decision making by their spouse's beliefs?
What seems to really irritate you is this particular woman doesn't hide in the weeds. You may not like her beliefs, but you at least respect her for not taking a step back because her husband should be the only one in the spotlight.
Isn't it ironic how you blast this woman for being out there -something you would likely cheer on if her beliefs coincided with yours?
4
@Guy Thompto: How do you know that Ms. Greenhouse would support a liberal wife of a liberal justice who is unethical? Could it be that you think paranoiacally like today's trump-supporting conservative, and trump himself?
Isn't it you, who have invented the irony?
@Guy Thompto
Say what you will about the Kennedys, but Bobby was confirmed by the Senate.
@Guy Thompto,
The Kennedys fought for their country in WWII.
Know who didn't?
Hollywood reagan, AWOL bush, war deferments cheney, hide in France romney, john wayne, ted nugent, clint eastwood and of course the most famous American coward of all donald j. bone-spurs.
We real Americans laugh when rightist cowards questions patriots or their families.
Now run along...trump's bone-spurs are acting up again and he needs help getting down the stairs again.
2
'Ginni Thomas ... an activist on the far-right fringe of the Republican Party'.
... And the proud wife of an African-American Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. And I for one am glad that she can be.
However, in her zeal to eradicate liberal values from the face of America, I do wonder who she thinks it was that fought for the right of couples like her and Justice Thomas to marry, and that at a time when fully 94 percent of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage? The Klan?
And are the Thomases, I wonder, not grateful for the stand taken by the SCOTUS in 1967 - a Court of which 7 Justices were Democrats, incidentally - in the case of Loving v. Virginia?
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas are surely prime examples of the principle that civil rights aren't just about the things you happen to approve of.
4
I don't like Ginny Thomas's views, in particular her opposition to abortion. But to compare her to Ruth Bader Ginsburg is ridiculous. Ginsburg is on the court; Ginny Thomas is not. You had no problem with Steven Reinhardt, who never met a left-wing cause he wouldn't write new rules for, overseeing a case brought by Ramona Ripston, his wife. So why the issue with Thomas?
5
Sorry, Ms. Greenhouse, but your attempt to distinguish Ruth Bader Ginsburg from Ginni Thomas is unpersuasive.
First, RBG is on the Supreme Court; Ginni Thomas is not.
Indeed, after RBG publicly opposed and criticized Trump (she famously promised to go to New Zealand if he won -- unfortunately, she broke that promise), RBG should have recused, and should recurse in the future, herself from all cases in which the Trump Administration is a party.
RBG has done much more to politicize the Supreme Court than Ginni Thomas could ever hope to do.
7
@Uysses RBG is a justice in her own right! Ginni Thomas is certainly not.
1
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges.”
So naive. We unfortunately have trump judges. Our Supreme Court is now as much an embarrassment as the rest of the government.
3
I'm surprised you think a woman can't have a mind of her own. If she were a liberal, would you be writing the same thing?
4
Many of these comments imply that feminists should support Ms. Thomas for speaking her mind and being influential. Feminism has nothing to do with it, because there is no double standard. No one is supporting male relatives exerting undue influence while expecting female relatives to keep their mouths shut.
71
@DL-Indeed. Mrs. Thomas being described as "smart lawyer-lobbyist" working for the United States Chamber of Commerce AGAINST passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act had me shaking head. What smart woman would work against passage of an act that takes care of families via medical leave legislation?
7
At issue is not whether Ms. Thomas is entitled to express her political views. At issue is whether she should have been invited to meet and actually met with the head of the executive branch to lobby for a result which will be coming before the court on which her husband sits.
7
“The people must have confidence in the integrity of the justices" --good idea.
Thus recusal given conflicts of interest--big or small.
Justice must be done AND be seen to be done--otherwise non-confidence. "Trust me" is not good enough.
3
People assume that advocates are sincere. Many probably do it for money. There is little money to be made being a moderate and even less notoriety. That said, Supreme Court family members should stay clear of hot button issues which will appear before the court. Partisanship erodes the integrity of the court.
2
In determining undue influence or recusal, just ask: If Ginni Thomas were not the spouse of Justice Clarence Thomas, does anyone think that she would have that kind of access to Individual 1?
10
As some of the comments on here have noted, the conflict of interest here is not cultural, but financial.
The Thomas "household", a legal entity for the purposes of financial disclosure, receives a direct financial benefit from the various political organizations that pay Ginni to advocate on their behalf.
At the very same time that Ginni is lobbying for them, Clarence is issuing rulings on matters that potentially provide a financial benefit to those very organizations that are paying into their "household".
Thus there is a potentially lucrative financial benefit to the Thomases in this convenient division of household labor, not to mention the unseemly appearance of it all, a Supreme Court judge no less. This could never happen at the state or local level.
The conflict could not be any clearer.
8
Given Clarence Thomas's extreme conservative positions, his wife's influence on him is most likely irrelevant, perhaps even tempering.
In any event, by all the standards of judicial ethics she appears to be within bounds to express herself and promote her ideology, no matter how abhorrent. The good news here is that unlike so much of the current administrations machinations, she is at least doing this in the light of day, right out in the open where watchdogs, such as Ms Greenhouse, can keep an eye on things.
1
I find this most enlightening and disturbing. For Justice Thomas and his wife to proceed in the manner Greenhouse describes here seems the height of arrogance. That she visited Trump to plead her case in the midst of an issue that is highly controversial and facing the Supreme Court where her husband sits stinks. There's something comical about the ultra-conservative ignoring rules others obey. Why does she act in this manner? Why does Thomas not say more? He is known for not speaking while sitting in the Court during proceedings. This needs further review.
7
It is inappropriate that Ms.Thomas takes an active and vocal position on cases that appear before the Supreme Court.What if the husband of one of the female Justices was a prominent lobbyist for a case before the Supreme Court.That is not a possibility now but it could be some day and I am confident that there would be a huge outcry against this involvement particularly if it were the husband of one of the more liberal women on the Court.It is critical that judges appear to follow the law-having family members advocating does not help their appearance of impartiality.
6
Finally a conservative voice speaks and is not afraid to voice her opinion. She speaks the truth and says what some of us are reluctant or unable to say for fear of negative consequences. The liberals want to silence conservatives but they will not succeed. We have relevant things to express and will never be silenced. We have just started to speak out and Ginni Thomas is a great representative for those of opposing views. Ginni Thomas for president. Maybe not in 2020 but she should consider running and would be an excellent choice. She has my vote and the votes of not only many women but also men. Please Mrs. Thomas do consider a run and serve your country admirably.
5
It strikes me as odd that we allow--indeed hire--the nine justices of the Supreme Court to weigh in on life changing issues of law, but do not trust them to make appropriate decisions within their family as to which jobs family members accept, which public statements are appropriate and which are crossing a boundary.
In so many instances married people are treated as "one" entity, but there exists a stream of thought which says that spouses may have jobs with opposing competitive interests and define for themselves what the rules are. Somehow, only financial gain seems to require the recusing of relatives, when there are other influences to consider.
At some point, there will be a spouse who is a lobbyist for foreign interests, given the global ownership of corporations. Can one spouse be a serious presidential candidate in that case? The public seems to regard spouses with membership in opposing political parties as "adorable" exceptions. The Conways come to mind as the most recent example. How much leeway do spouses have to pursue an independent career in opposition to each other?
However, we as a society wish to look at each spouse as having the right to an independent career, it is a fantasy to assume the outcome is the same as it would be were the parties not connected. The best we can hope for is the parties involved to exercise good judgment; Mrs. Thomas's actions and statements in publicly pursuing an extreme agenda does not reflect good judgment.
3
It looks like this problem would be taken care of if we had a celibate judiciary. Or maybe if wives of judges were limited in their activities to traditional homemaker roles? No, I guess that wouldn't work either.
So how about a "Greenhouse recusal rule" (to supplement the "Greenhouse effect"): spouses of activist judges would be OK if the judges are outspoken liberals, but not if they are conservatives like Scalia and Thomas. There. Problem solved.
3
Justice Thomas is already a Republican politician in judicial robes, so doubt that his wife's activity and positions on issues make any difference to him when adjudicating a case before the court.
10
Ginni and Clarence are made for each other tastes, as the truth 'must' accommodate to their circumstances and even upbringing, perfectly legitimimate when considered in their own private cocoon. In the public arena though, I beg to differ, as they continue to carry prejudicial baggage, even at least the appearance of resentment of their lot in life. What are they trying to prove, their moral worth, over-compensating for the Anita Hill's fiasco, or their intolerance of alternate ways to enjoy life?
9
At least Gini Thomas is not saying the Parkland survivors are hired crisis actors or that there is no physical scientific evidence for a shooting or that is was a staged event of public theatre. God forbid she would say any of that.
1
Ginni Thomas is an example to us all of how we should engage in political life.
The fact she espouses causes and has the good fortune to bend the ear of a president in the White House is as a result of an activism open to all citizens.
She had a career prior to her marriage and the suggestion that any progress since that marriage is due to the elevation of her partner is jaundiced small minded and retrograde.
She may be on the wrong side of history- but that puts her in the company of men and women everywhere who see this country as a lockbox whose keys get handed to one type of person despite contributions by all.
Let her push her ideas, it is up to those who think differently to engage and push in opposition.
7
"Perfect"? Hardly. Not as a spouse, and certainly not for our time. Ginny Thomas does not simply espouse views on matters of public policy; she embraces the most fundamental arguments against (almost never for) the expansion of existing rights to include individuals -- persons in Constitutional parlance -- who have before been excluded or whose rights were curtailed. Moreover, she does not merely express views -- either orally or in writing, she picks sides -- intentionally pitting some people against others. If she were an simply an advocate for or against institutional matters -- on tax policy, say, or foreign affairs, or even domestic spending by or for Federal againcies of government, surely we would be less concerned. But Ginni Thomas targets her advocacy toward types of people and their personal well-being. Not even applying the standard of "bad taste" would be sufficient. Perhaps we should assess her advocacy by whether she exhibits basic common decency and respect for the dignity of every human being -- and not just some.
25
Trump and Trump alone (along with Ivanka, Don Jr., Jared, et al.) provide ample reason to hasten the demise of a patriarchal (and nepotistic) political order, but Ginni Thomases White House escapade underscores how the American right's contempt for democratic norms is not gendered. Thomas and her group should not be lobbying the president, and the president should not be meeting with them. The ever-transactional Trump is betting on a single trump card, the Supreme Court, to spare him from the consequences of his actions. The Thomas family is undoubtedly aware of that fact, particularly as they consider the ascension of Matthew Whitaker. What is clear is that not only is it likely that Trump lacks legitimacy, but that all that he has touched while in government also lacks legitimacy, most particularly today's even more stridently rightwardly skewed Court. There is something rotten, but it is assuredly not in the state of Denmark. Considering the composition of the Court, at least Trump is indebted to the Bush family for something.
25
For me, the most disturbing moment in Ms. Greenhouse's fine essay lies in the quote from Antonin Scalia regarding recusal. We know that Scalia based his decisions on the idea that social mores should never have changed in the 230 years since the Constitution came into force. He also seems, as he's quoted in the article, to slyly turn the notion of recusal on its head by saying that no one should suggest that a judge should recuse him or herself because, by suggesting that judges might be swayed by their friends or connections, we imply that judges are corruptible when the public must believe they are not.
What nonesense! Whether we rely on common sense or on a knowledge of psychology, we know that no one is the best judge of their own corruptibility. That's why we have recusal rules.
46
Our Supreme Court is in a sad state. Chief Justice Robert really has an image problem on his hands as to why we should believe they are impartial and not swayed by money.
18
@Areader
I don't think some of the Justices on this Court even care whether the public views them as impartial. They have been open regarding their agenda their entire career. In fact, the three most recent Republican appointees were specifically identified and groomed by the Heritage Foundation for appointment. They are hardened right wing conservatives who are not going to be swayed by something as basic as the law.
37
@Texas Duck Speaking of grooming, it is hard to imagine that the last two justices came out of the same high school. I wonder if the next new judge will come from Georgetown Prep also?
1
Judges are supposed to be nonpartisan. Yet a major cause of Trump's election, perhaps the single greatest factor, was upcoming appointments to the Supreme Court and federal judgeships. Mitch Mcconnell described the result as a mission accomplished. Judges can feel as though they are nonpartisan, but if that is so, why are appointments such a big political issue in campaigns?
33
Clarence Thomas receives a monetary benefit from his wife's lobbying income. She is directly lobbying on specific issues before the court. Her income is predicated on being a successful lobbyist on those issues. As to those specific issues for which she is paid to lobby, he must recuse himself.
If she worked for Exxon no one would argue Thomas could sit on cases involving Exxon. This is no different in respect to the groups she is lobbying on behalf of who have a stake in issues before the court.
68
Ginni Thomas called Anita Hill and asked her to apologize for what she said about Clarence Thomas with respect to sexual harassment. If Clarence Thomas was not a public figure Ginni Thomas might not have called Anita Hill to make such a ridiculous request. It was insensitive, tactless, and a few other things besides.
The only reason Ginni Thomas has any influence now is because of her husband. In my opinion she is taking advantage of that and not in a good way. She is pushing an agenda that hurts people who are different and who, because of her religious beliefs, as I understand it, are not worthy of consideration of any sort.
Nothing she is saying is borne out by the actions of transgender people. Nothing she is saying makes sense in the world that is not 1950s America any longer. If she wants to return to those days I suggest she look at her marriage to Clarence Thomas and realize that back in the day it would have been viewed in quite a different light. For that matter, back in the day Thomas would not have been considered for anything as prestigious as the Supreme Court. He would have been one of many African Americans considered less than human.
66
@hen3ry,
Thomas thought Anita Hill was a weak woman like her.
She learned otherwise.
Ginni was so mad because while Anita Hill rebuffed her husband grotesque predatory sexual advances, Ginni was too weak and republican to do the same.
3
@hen3ry
Perfectly stated. And while Ginnie Thomas rides her husband's coattails, he is riding her's. And the special-interest groups seeking to corrupt our democracy through greed and theology, are using Ginnie Thomas to influence her husband, and the administration.
Q: To the emoluments laws pertain to the all public servants, and not just the POTUS?
First, calling Trump a faker is a nonpartisan description going back over decades before he was politically active, not just a comment on his role in the 2016 campaign. If you do not believe that, you need to go back to school - specifically to Trump University.
Second, as with Trump's family, the idea that family members profit directly from the conduct in government office of their father or mother or sibling or child is deeply disturbing. In such cases a federal judge could recuse herself, but some officials such as the president cannot so easily do so. Only POTUS can sign legislation into law, even if the result is a direct profit to the president's family. Jeff Sessions actually did the right thing when he recused himself from the Russia investigation. If a federal judge or justice has a family member working to influence the courts, the Court, or even the public, on a matter before the courts, concern is appropriate, A judge can be non-partisan, but the decisions seen as partisan anyway. Scalia's arguement sounds persuasive, but his voting record suggested profound actual bias despite his words and his being RBG's dear friend.
Recusal is the nonpolitical solution. But some cannot recuse, and some cases are so universal (What is marriage?) that the outcome must impact the judge and his family.
4
"She’s broken no rules except the rules of good taste. "
What rules she may have broken aren't relevant. What matters is what rules her husband may have broken. It is beyond belief to think that Justice Thomas wasn't influenced by her extremist activities. That includes him participating in right wing conferences and accepting gratuities or fees to do that, activities to raise political campaign funds, and even writing in publications about right wing causes. These are serious ethical violations, and Thomas has done all of them.
While it's true that Trump deserves to be impeached, so does Thomas.
115
@Max Dither
So you would have us believe that Bill Clinton wasnt influenced by Hillary? But that is fine?
4
@James
I guess that influencing your spouse is only bad when folks on the right to it.
1
@James Let's not play whataboutism. I would have you believe that Justice Thomas has committed enough unethical actions that he deserves to be impeached.
1
White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform, Norm Eisen never would have tolerated a Justice's lobbyist spouse whispering in the president's ear.
Yet another example of how the current administration cares little for bothering to keep up appearances on ethics.
53
Reminds me of a funny SCOTUS spouse story. On the morning after having issued an opinion he wrote upholding the free expression right to burn the flag, Scalia was greeted at breakfast by his wife humming the tune to "It's a Grand Old Flag!"
3
The real objection of Ms Greenhouse and the NYT is not that Justice Thomas’s is politically active, but that she is politically active for conservative causes. Would a similar piece be written about the the spouse of a liberal justice exercising his or her constitutional right to advocate for liberal causes? I think not.
7
@Chris Strong
An example of such a situation would bolster the argument.
2
@Chris Strong
In other words, you agree with her views and hence are looking for an excuse to permit her to continue behaving in a blatant, partisan manner?
Are you okay with this type of behavior, whether on the left or right?
While right wingers have in fact challenged "liberal" judges for these types of connections, I don't know of anyone who has actually formally challenged Thomas' right to rule on a matter-do you?
1
@Chris Strong
Actually any spouse, either liberal or conservative, should not do what Ginny Thomas is doing. Both are not ethical. Yes, I am sure a liberal piece would surely be written by a conservative and he/she would be right.
1
Flow. A news story reported that on the 20 year anniversary of the hearing regarding Justice Thomas sexual harassment of Dr, Anita Hill, Attorney Ginni Thomas is reported to have phoned Dr. Hill to say that after 20 years, Dr. Hill should admit that she made up the allegations of the sexual harassment by Justice Thomas. Dr. Hill then contacted campus security at Brandeis University, on the faculty there, to report the call. Have not checked the veracity of the story and I hope that I have remembered the details of the story correctly. If true, make what you will of Attorney Ginni Thomas's reported conduct.
19
@Drake Burroughs
I remember the same thing and looked it up.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20thomas.html
She admitted leaving the message on Ms Hill’s voicemail. Who knows what made her do it - perhaps events in her marriage caused her to question his husband.
Apologies, folks: "Flow" should be "fwiw" (Damn autocorrect … !)
You mean when she goes to the WH and meets with the president? Yes!
4
Ginni Thomas is a perfect example of Republican-Conservative hypocrisy:
- Conservative claim that the fact that Strzok and Lisa Page were lovers who exchanged personal text messages was prima facie evidence that they couldn't be unbiased about a case that they were handling; yet it's perfectly OK for Justice Thomas's wife to publicly advocate for about a case that he's handling. Utter hypocrisy!
- Thomas seems to have forgotten that it wasn't too long ago that courts around the country vociferously condemned her mixed-race marrioage, invoking God's law: "The natural law, which forbids their intermarriage and that amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to them
different natures.” (Phila RR Co v Miles) Utter hypocrisy!
I'm tired of giving Rightwingers a mulligan on all of their hypocritical pronouncements and actions. It's time that we (including writers for the "fake media") start loudly calling them out for their hypocrisy and lies!
97
@Paul-A
I regret that I have but one 'recommend' to give for your comment. Exactly.
6
Please notice the legal reasoning of Scalia as quoted: the outcome of the argument is the same as the predicate. It’s a good thing these dopes aren’t engineers building passenger aircraft.
10
In “Trump Meets With Hard-Right Group Led by Ginni Thomas.” there was a phrase that most of us just read right by: Hard-Right.
Hard-right may seem to merely identify a place on a spectrum, equivalent to liberal or conservative. But the plain words hide the animosity and vindictiveness felt toward all who aren't the same as they. The hard-right can't simply live and let live. The hard-right purposefully goes out of its way on a mission to hurt people as demonstrated by Ginni Thomas. And she is certainly not alone. And while from time to time the hard-right group may not be seeking to actually punish others for who they are, they will be working to deny others' their humanity and rights. Which, of course, is hurting people.
Labels make a difference. Labels work. That is why the Republican marketing and branding machine is so effective and important. When you read of the Heritage Foundation or any of these innocuous sounding labels designed to lower your guard remember the hard-right hiding behind the label are those who hate others. Those who would do away with people different from them or at least have them live apart, not be seen. Having no humanity or rights.
33
Ms. Greenhouse is suggesting that Justice Thomas would decide on a vote specifically to please his wife.
Given that just about any politically controversial case reaching the court engenders a fair amount of public discussion, it is not likely that only Ginni Thomas might offer an argument that no one else also offers, and justices must either explain in writing their reasoning for a vote or concur with another’s. So the only possible ethical issue might be if Thomas votes to please his wife.
That is like suggesting Barack Obama would decide things to benefit the Black community to the detriment of others specifically because he is Black, or that JFK decided things to please Catholics, or that Carter did things to please Baptists.
Does Ms. Greenhouse really want to go there ?
This is just stabbing Thomas in the back because Ms. Greenhouse doesn't like his political philosophy.
The very definition of divisive.
9
Having politicized the Supreme Court, Democrats are now surprised that the court is politicized.
8
@HTA Liu
How did the Democrats politicize the Supreme Court. By challenging Bork, a man so extreme that even many Republicans were uncomfortable with him.
By challenging two Nixon appointees as complete flakes-it turned out they were.
Scalia fabricated historical tests to justify his extreme philosophy. While entertaining and a decent person, he ignored the law to ensure George Bush's appointment by the Supreme Court to the Presidency, and you think Democrats politicized the Supreme Court? And yes, George Bush was appointed to the Presidency, he lost the election.
Unlike Republicans, who now rely on the Heritage Foundation to select extreme right wing nuts (pardon my bluntness) for the Supreme Court, Democrats do not have a similar organization.
3
If Ms. Thomas, in the interview with People
magazine, expressed "How we Survived"
are we to assume that Anita Hill's testimony at Justice Thomas's hearing was"fake news?"
6
Virginia Thomas, is energized when it comes to far right causes.
She described, according to the article, student survivors of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting who are campaigning for gun control as “dangerous to the survival of our nation”.
She is an admirer of Sean Hannity, who peppers President Trump, at least on occasion, with right wing, conspiracy theory fueled advice.
According to an article in Mother Jones by David Corn on July 25, 2013; "Inside Groundswell: Read the Memos of the New Right-Wing Strategy Group Planning a “30 Front War”
“One of the influential conservatives guiding the group is Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, a columnist for the Daily Caller and a tea party consultant and lobbyist."
Justice Thomas should not be condemned for his associations but, the citizens of this country are currently dealing with the possibility of an unstable president elected fraudulently with the help of a nuclear armed foreign adversary.
We should not also have to worry that Clarence Thomas is being unduly influenced by the extreme right wing views of his wife.
This is a man who, after all, reportedly did not ask a question from the bench for more than ten years.
He must talk to someone.
I believe that efforts should be undertaken to ensure Justice Thomas’ is recused, over his objections if necessary, in any decisions advocated publicly by his wife.
"Ginni" Thomas talks to Sean Hannity.
Hannity talks to Donald Trump.
Donald Trump talks to Vladimir Putin...
24
While I likely disagree with every political position of Clarence Thomas and has wife Ginni, she is not sitting on the Court and should be able to speak and act in any way she wishes. It is up to the people listening to her to value what she says. I suspect she does not speak for her husband. She speaks for herself.
46
@Patrick Stevens no. if clarence was a mechanic or a garbage truck driver i would agree...... but he is a servant pf all the american people (supposedly) and by extension his wife is a public person. she , because of his position. has access to the highest levels of our government..... and she has influence because of her husband's position. she is using this advantage trying to deny the rights of american citizens. it is despicable and since, once again, we cannot trust conservatives to respect norms and traditions there will have to be a law written to prevent this in the future.
95
@coale johnson Even the justices themselves deserve the protection of the First Amendment. If not speaking directly from the bench, they have all the same protections as the rest of us. We are all Americans first.
4
@Patrick Stevens Let's not forget that Thomas failed to report (as required) his wife's income from the Heritage Foundation. Conveniently ignoring ethical rules of the road are and have been a feature of GOP Politics.
Ethics violations may not be illegal (lying on Government forms - for Public servants this may, in fact, be illegal; but with the GOP, where would one begin)- but in the case of a Supreme Court Justice, it should be grounds for dismissal.
62
Not knowing if the white house dinner was a request from Mrs Thomas or an invitation from the president, it should have never happened, Why did no one at this administration see how inappropriate it was for any specific group or person related to the third branch of government should get any special venue to plead their case?
Respect for those divisions alone should have made it a non event, Of course this administration has little respect for any decorum or other legal concerns.
10
Thought-provoking. I think she did "cross the line" between appropriate and inappropriate (as did Justice Ginsburg in her comment about candidate Trump), but not the one between her husband's required recusal and his fitness to hear cases where his wife has expressed a nonfinancial "interest" in a potentially relevant policy question. Should judges be required to recuse themselves whenever one of their immediate family members has expressed an "interest," in that broader sense, in issues that may come before the court? If so, there would be recusals in most cases, or family members would be forced into silence on the issues of the day for the duration of their judicial relative's tenure.
1
I think I agree with the conclusion here, but am uncomfortable with it. The fact that Justice Thomas' wife met with the President seems to put this in a different light, particularly when there are many issues looming to be presented to the Supreme Court about his right to exercise his authority as President to ignore the law and unilaterally create new laws. Her conduct at least creates the appearance of a conflict, a careful judge would probably recuse him/herself. As to previous cases, I am almost always mistrustful of Justice Scalia's decisions as driven by his personal beliefs more than by precedent or legal reasoning, an approach that seems to have been adopted by the Republican appointees on the current court. I am mistrustful of the situation here, given the politicization of the Court, but reluctantly agree with Ms. Greenhouse that the principle is more important than the current actors.
5
Had the "Conservative" Supreme Court Justices been ruthlessly honest, then most, if not all of them would have recused themselves in Bush V. Gore that made the loser in the 2000 election the President, and a dreadful one at that. (Trump is making us forget just how awful GWB was--destroyed the economy wiping out people's savings while doubling unemployment, relaxed pollution controls, ignored terrorism warnings that led to 9/11, then took us into 3 wars).
As I remember:
Sandra Day O'Connor was overheard at a party saying she couldn't STAND the idea of Albert Gore as President. She didn't recuse.
Both William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia had children working in either law firms tied to the Bush Campaign or the GOP. Neither recused.
Worst was Thomas, whose wife was vetting candidates for appointment by Bush before the case was decided. If it went for Gore, she was out of a job. Thomas didn't recuse.
(if there was a reason for Kennedy to recuse, I'm not aware of it).
So 4 of the 5 Justices who voted to overturn the Florida Supreme Court, voted to violate that Southern and right-wing absolute, "States' Rights", and put the obvious loser in the White House should ALL have recused themselves. Had just ONE done the right thing, our entire history would be different.
Thomas is, and always has been a dreadful justice, both politically and technically, famous for thinking that a key step, oral arguments, is irrelevant!
27
@Dadof2 Astutely explained. Most will ignore what you say but it is absolutely true. Not that truth is worth much these days.
8
@Dadof2
History books will see this for what it really was, a Coup d'État.
2
Do people have any idea how many politicians are married to lobbyists, senior members of the bureaucracy, high-powered lawyers and other powerful people? This goes male/female, Republican/Democrat. Corruption needs to be addressed, but making the assumption that anyone isn’t their own person is wrong.
5
Your article reminds me of a quote from Walter Bagehot, the 19th century British author and founder of The Economist magazine.
"Every banker knows that if he has to prove that he is worthy of credit, however good may be his arguments, in fact his credit is gone: but what we have requires no proof."
The Supreme Court, like Bagehot's banker, has one asset, the public trust in its credibility. When that's gone, and it's fading quickly, there is nothing left.
25
> Do the political activities of Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife cross a line?
Yes.
21
There is apparently no ort fallen from a banquet table that little minds will not scramble after in their continuing pathetic public temper tantrums at having been defeated by a game show host. A game show host who defeated their long-suffering, long-overdue, Entitled One. It still provokes gushers of pointed laughter. So of course, a SCOTUS spouse who happens to be a right wing firebrand is OBVIOUSLY someone to keep an eye on. DeBlasio’s wife? On the public payroll? Crickets. Mr spouse of Secretary of State being paid millions chatting up foreign potentates? Silencio. We actually welcome the typical NYT, er, version of events. They are circulated as examples of partisan news and they serve to educate the growing number of less than credulous voters. More for us, less for you.
6
Clearly not silence if you know about it. And of course half of America gets crickets in the other direction
Ginni and Clarence are a vile embarassment. There may not be Obama and Bush judges (although there are even if Roberts closes his eyes, sticks his fingers in his ears and hums) let's not forget that Thomas sits in the seat once occupied by the towering Thurgood Marshall. It was Poppy Bush and his horrible enablers that thought it would be funny (?) to replace the greatest African American justice and civil rights icon, Marshall, with the worst justice in history, Thomas, who happens to be African American.
The embarassment of Justice Thomas and his disgusting past as it relates to Anita Hill (thanks Joe Biden we remember) is only exceeded by the weirdness and horrible bigoted behavior of his crazy wife who let's also remember called up Anita Hill in the middle of the night in just the last few years to demand that she apologize to her husband. Ginni Thomas is everything frightening about the right and her access to power and influence needs to be stopped.
27
Ginni Thomas sounds like she is her own person and is entitled to her personal opinions. She has every right to work wherever she wants and when she wants. I thought the feminists believed in women in the workplace and working in any occupation of their choice. I guess they feel that it is only progressive women who are entitled to careers of any kind. Mrs. Thomas sounds like an independent woman and she should be applauded. She must continue working in her current capacity and making a worthwhile contribution to our society. Today women can be anything they want to be. Isn't this what the feminists and liberals have been preaching for many years. Maybe they should start practicing what they preach. How about it?
6
@WPLMMT
Except she’s not really ‘her own person’. She is entitled to her opinions but is she ‘entitled’ to use her husband’s position to advance them?
35
This is absurd, primarily because liberals do support the rights of women to work in any filed and receive equivalent pay. That’s not what the GT discussion is about. You seem to have confused professional equality and corruption. This piece—indeed, all the discussion around GT—is about ethical and/or legal conflicts. That has proven a difficult line for republicans to understand in the contemporary GOP, so it is unsurprising that their rank and file does not either.
27
Ginni Thomas is just another sickening example of how the far-right wing, despite being a minority in the country, has inextricably inserted themselves deep into the mainstream workings of our government both on the state and federal level. Most Americans, especially the ones who consistently do not vote, are unaware of this. We need a lot more media coverage of this phenomenon and our country needs to wake up and decide if this is who we really want to be. Do we really want to be ruled by the far right-wing 30% of the populace?
27
It sounds as though the liberals are trying to silence conservative voices. We the people must speak up aggressively against this injustice. All voices and opinions must be heard. Believe it or not there are still Americans who want to hear what Ginni Thomas has to say. We happen to agree with her and support her viewpoints. Shocking isn't it. We do not want her to stop and will listen. Keep speaking out Mrs Thomas. Conservatives will be your advocate and are behind you.
6
Excuse me, but this is just demented! Ginni Thomas, according to this newspaper MET WITH DONALD TRUMP in a meeting of hard-right activists to discuss such compelling topics as the way transgender people should not serve in the military and same-sex marriage is ruining the fabric of society. I'm not sure I understand how Justice Thomas can feel as if his wife pushing a conservative agenda with the president of the United States is not a radical conflict of interest. I'd feel less uncomfortable if Thomas himself went to meet with the president. That would feel more overt and less dishonest. We could see that for what it really is.
27
So tempting to rail against the intemperate and insensitive nature of Justice Clarence Thomas' wife, Ginni, but you have avoided that temptation Ms. Greenhouse. Bravo.
Instead, your lawyerly research into its broad history is enlightening and so helpful.
Thank you.
6
The russians corrupted the last presidential election.
When notified that the attack was occurring; Mitch McConnell ignored his Oath of Office, and refused to acknowledge the criminal events unfolding.
Why?
Why did Mitch think he could block President Obama's Supreme Court pick? What did he know?
Mitch is corrupt, and likely compromised.
The two Supreme Court Justices installed under his watch, are illegitimate.
Money is not Free Speech; and corporations can't have religious rights.
Scalia should have recused with Cheney. Those secret meeting Cheney was having with Oil execs, in the White House, were public record. Scalia covered for Dick.
Scalia typified the "federalist" elitist approach to Law; better known as Judicial Arrogance.
27
"She’s broken no rules except the rules of good taste. What she’s violated are longstanding norms of behavior. And in an age when nearly every norm is being shredded, that makes her the perfect Supreme Court spouse for our time."
Ms. Greenhouse ought to apologize for this disgusting, misogynistic, prejudiced and fact free swipe placed at the end of an article where she reluctantly concludes that Ms. Thomas is perfectly within her rights to do what she is doing, and Justice Thomas need not recuse himself from anything.
9
Nice spew of invectives. How many are actually true? Who cares! Because you have an agenda and don’t let small things like facts or following an argument get in your way.
Probably no more than Alan Greenspan's wife working for the most Progressive of media outlets.
Or Andy McCabe's wife taking $750,000 from the Clinton Foundation donation to the McCaulliffe Foundation to use for political donations.
If you live in a glass house, it's best to not throw stones.
7
Ginny's extreme right statements and advocacy soil the court's reputation, if by nothing but association.
15
I heard people were upset that then U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado Troy Eid was married to the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, Alison E. Eid. People thought it was a conflict and suspected that if you had problems with one court and went other court system for an independent evidentiary hearing that there would be more behind the scenes collusion. The Colorado Supreme Court runs the Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel which is a total joke -- COARC even let Judge Edward "Naughty" Nottingham continue in practice without even an extra ethics course. They did this I think while the Eids were still in office. This protected criminal convictions secured under Nottingham including that of Joe Nacchio -- suspect because Nottingham wouldn't allow a defense witness to testify. Now I see that Mrs. Eid is on the 10th Circuit. That's enough to keep me out of the region.
5
If political party affiliation were reversed with a Democrat-appointee's spouse clamoring for pro-abortion rights the Republicans would have held non-stop investigations and impeachment hearings.
24
The US elects a president, but it gets also a First Lady (or a first spouse, but so far it has been a lady).
The spouse is not elected to anything, yet wields tremendous power, if she wants (or less if she does not). Think of Eleanor Roosevelt, Michelle Obama, Hilary Clinton, Laura Bush as first ladies with agendas (and I am not saying they were bad, but they certainly used their husband's position). Yet why should their agenda be of more importance than of Mrs. Smith from Teaneck? Because of "pillow talk" with the president? Does a First Lady in general influence her husband? Probably.
So that is Ok? But Ginni Thomas, about whom I knew nothing until I read this op-ed, is a problem?
3
@Joshua Schwartz
Part of the problem is the issue of separation of the branches of government. He is a Supreme Court Justice and she was lobbying the President. Now your "pillow talk" crosses lines.
168
@ExPatMX Separation of powers refers to the three branches of government: Judicial, Legislative, and Executive. She is not a member of any of them so how does it become an issue?
1
@Richard Fleishman. because it is "pillow talk" across the branches.
4
Family ties at the Supreme Court have been influencing the justices - at least those on the right - for almost twenty years at least. Consider the following:
Before the disgraceful Bush v. Gore decision, Justices O'Connor, Thomas, and Scalia were ethically required to recuse themselves. O'Connor, at an election-watching party, when Florida was first called for Gore, was heard to exlaim, "Oh, no, this is horrible!" She went on to explain that she wanted to retire soon, but would only do so under a Republican president.
Thomas's wife, Ginni, was actually working for the Bush team, collecting applications for candidates to help fill positions in a Bush administration if Bush were to win.
Two of Scalia's sons were lawyers in firms that were representing Bush.
Ethics? Republicans don't need no stinking ethics! And just to show that irony isn't dead, Scalia was a prominenet panelist in several discussions for the Annenberg series, "Ethics in America".
505
@Vesuviano And, don't forget Anthony Kennedy's son's connection to Deutsche Bank and their endless bailing out of the Trump empire. Convenient timing on his retirement, no?
83
@Vesuviano First, no one on the Supreme Court in the Bush v. Gore case met any standard showing they were biased, any more than the liberals on the bench met any legal standard that they were biased. If conservatives had to recuse themselves in that case, so did liberals.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg should have resigned from the bench in disgrace for her biased, hate filled, nasty remarks about then candidate Trump. No sitting justice has ever been so openly partisan. She is a disgrace.
@Vesuviano
Names please! Let them see their names in the New York Times!
your last paragraph says its all except that it seems it is conservatives that are the activists here.... and have been since at least since the 2000 election.
10
Clarence Thomas wants to shred the gun laws currently in place and make all states conform to those found in Alabama, Arizona, Florida and others. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are in his corner and Alito will go along just to make liberals squirm. It is up to John Roberts, a pro-business conservative, to reign in this attempt next fall when the NYC case is heard. Meanwhile, I would expect Roberts to have a chat with Thomas, who is now beaming with pride over all the former law clerks who are now federal judges with lifetime appointments and whose wife can pray in the oval office and disparage her enemies all with the same breath. And we are suppose to believe the Roberts Court is respectable and trustworthy?
24
Why are none of us surprised that Thomas's wife is grifting and he says and does nothing about conflicts of interest and ethics? Pluto ain't a planet anymore either.
14
@Rover
Just another dog.
3
Money and power and cynicism, a lethal brew, her and her husband are symptoms of a dying democracy. They don't care what you think, they don't have to. Similar to McConnell in the senate.
21
Interesting. Perhaps another good reason the scotus should no longer be a lifetime appointment. And change with the times.
16
Ginni Thomas is "an activist on the far-right fringe of the Republican Party."
"she has denounced the student survivors of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting who are campaigning for gun control as “dangerous to the survival of our nation”
"she warned fellow conservatives against being “complicit as the left moves its forces across the country.”
She met with Trump to argue "why women and transgender people should not be permitted to serve in the military and how same-sex marriage is damaging the country."
Ginni is an activist and spokesperson for Republican Utopian America, a time when America was at its white-male supremacist pinnacle.
But one must ask,
Why is she not in her home standing tall in high heels and wearing a pearl necklace, baking cookies, breathlessly awaiting her husband's arrival from his long day at work, anxious to bring him his slippers?
Why is this far-right fringe activist advocating against same-sex marriage and not inter-racial marriage? Does she not see that her own marriage is a denial of her right-fringe purity?
Of course there is one word which explains inconsistencies in the Republican Party: hypocrisy.
Republicans simply want to deny freedom and rights to others, "others" who are not white, male, Christians. But they indulge themselves in what they would deny to the "others."
Lamenting unbaked cookies, Clarence must wonder if he is but a token spouse of a white supremacists who married him as cover against being exposed a racist.
33
When was the last time you even knew the spouse of a Justice. She has always been a issue, being controversial and crossing line several times! She has been a radical extremist for years!
13
“The people must have confidence in the integrity of the justices,” Justice Scalia wrote, “and that cannot exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible by the slightest friendship or favor, and in an atmosphere where the press will be eager to find foot faults.”
That Scalia quote brought to mind recent news about physicians prescribing opioids and other drugs. Physicians who accepted gifts from pharmaceutical sales reps prescribed the rep's drugs at higher rates. The gifts didn't have to be expensive: They could be little things like pens or a pizza. And the physicians denied that they were influenced, likely because they weren't even aware of it.
If physicians can be influenced (i.e., corrupted) by the slightest friendship or favor, why couldn't justices? We have to assume that justices might be "corruptible by the slightest friendship or favor" because most of us are.
Long before the research on physicians was conducted, justices were supposed to avoid the appearance of impropriety. That was wise.
Scalia was often described as brilliant, and this column describes Ginni Thomas as smart. Whatever. They both have acted like idiots. Sometimes smart people say and do really dumb things.
15
For someone whose marriage would have been illegal 53 years ago. Whose marriage offended the traditions and norms of the United States. To to take up a crusade against marriage equality is either incredible irony or breathtaking hubris. Let's be honest. Mrs. Clarence Thomas would never have been granted a platform to make this case in the Oval Office but for the fact she is Mrs. Clarence Thomas.
771
@JohnMcFeely and Clarence Thomas, who benefitted from Affirmative Action, whether he likes to acknowledge it or not, ought to understand, if anyone does, what his wife's activity looks like to others. She's taking advantage of HIS position. Isn't that what he detested about AA, the fact that it made it look as if he was taking advantage of something to get what he didn't deserve: a place in an excellent law school where others made him feel as if he didn't get there on his own merit?
What has always struck me about Thomas is how angry he was and is about AA. If you read his autobiography he does state that he didn't like the views others voiced about him. Then, if you read what Sotomayor wrote you realize that she decided not to be angry but to be honored and make others faith in her justified by rising to the occasion and doing as well as she could. Sotomayor is one of the reasons we have Affirmative Action. I'm not sure what Thomas is.
97
@JohnMcFeely
Well said. No doubt the irony is completely lost on Mrs. Clarence Thomas. And Mr. for that matter.
77
@JohnMcFeely "To to take up a crusade against marriage equality is either incredible irony or breathtaking hubris. "
...and morally tone deaf.
65
Justice Thomas is a bitter old man, as partisan as they come, and if anything he makes his wife look like a moderate. He would sell the principles of the constitution down the drain in a moment if it suited his conservative masters despite his professed belief in it. Nothing Justice Roberts could say about the nonpartisan nature of the SC can change any of this as Justice Thomas continues on his partisan destructive course.
19
This issue is very important!
Please examine all possible conflicts of interest and publish them.
When the law is corrupted, the nation is corrupted.
10
She crossed the line of decency a long time ago.
11
This is not that hard. Thomas is in the wrong.
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities
(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
(C) Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.
https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
17
If Ginni Thomas armed with an assault rifle shot some people on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan would she have "stepped over the line" or would she have been merely expressing her 2nd Amendment rights to defend herself? And if the case against her reached the Supreme Court which of the Republican "Justices" would recuse themselves?
6
Ms. Thomas is a conservative radical who believes that her husband's position on the Supreme Court allows her to spew her intolerance. But, look who is in the White House? I find her crass and of little intelligence, but I think the same of Donald Trump.
13
You would think that someone whose marriage would have been illegal in 16 or so states just 52 years ago might have some understanding of what same-sex couples experienced before Obergefell. When it comes to Justice Thomas and his wife, you would be wrong.
17
Would you have expressed the same doubts if Ginni Thomas had been a flaming feminist?
What the media have routinely ignored is the fact that the "racist" Republican party supported a black man with a white wife during days when interracial marriages were taboo.
Charges of racism against Trump and the Republican party continue as if facts simply do not matter. "If WE think that the Republicans are racist then they are racist - no discussion".
But there is a price to pay with us centrists. When Democrats ignore facts on the ground, then other Democrats do listen. But we centrists regard Democrats as lacking credibility and being just as willing to lie and distort as some Republicans.
2
Do you have any understanding of the historical context for the Thomas appointment? Clearly not. Interracial marriage was no more taboo during his nomination that in subsequent decades. Nor does their support of a single black justice, Thomas, change the party’s record on race over the past five decades.
Nobody believes you are a centrist just because you claim to be one in a post. That canard is rhetorically unsound.
8
right wing judges have become partisan hacks.
Important Judicial rulings are almost always based on party. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
3
@paul Ninth circuit ring a bell. Always depends whose ox is being gored.
1
This is why I find all the hand wringing focus on Mr. Trump as a grand example of missing the forest while obsessing over a single large tree. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific, Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United v. FEC, et. al. have made corruption of the Federal government legal and the grifters are lined up a mile deep to take advantage. Removing Trump will simply change the spokesmodel for a thoroughly corrupted system of government.
7
The last thing we need in these fraught times is a Ginni Thomas apologist. It was totally inappropriate for her to be dining with Trump with the express purpose of getting more of her likeminded cronies hired by his administration. At some point in the very near future her husband could decide the future of his presidency, her attempt to get favorable treatment for her friends reeks of a tit for tat. Before we get too hung up on curtailing her woman’s right to express her independent view let’s remember that she and her friends also complained about women serving in the military and their slam of transgender troops shouldn’t be ignored either. Bottom line, though her heinous views and habit of pushing right wing conspiracies may overlap with Trump’s she didnt deserve a seat at his table and only got one because of her husband’s position.
376
@George
1. In appropriate for Ginni Thomas (and husband) to dine with Trump and Melania.
2. In appropriate for Trump to dine with either of them!
3. Melania was with Trump for the meeting he had with Putin in Argentina (G20). Perhaps she was his translator? And no one official there to take notes.
4. Now, put #3 together with #1. Trump is not known to keep National Security secrets. Who knows what passed between the 4 of them?
It worries me that there are potential ways in which 2 Supreme Court Justices now may “owe” Trump something.
This has a very bad smell to it!
31
Seems we need some fair minded interpretations.
Seems Mrs Clinton got where she did because of her "seat" at the table and then selling out to women all over the world by attacking her husbands victims.
Just be honest
@George, not to mention that the court might decide on transgenders in the armed forces.
7
Interesting that Ms. Thomas argues to constrict the rights of others on the grounds that to grant those rights would destroy her own claimed "God-given" rights. In other words, gay people may not marry, or be accorded respect--not based on their own lack of merit, but because it would destroy her "traditional" marriage. She would argue that you can't say she's a bigot--she's just protecting her claim to superior rights--it's not that she doesn't like gay people. I suppose that works with others who don't like gays, Blacks, working women, etc., etc. Sad and ugly way to live. And she had the nerve to demand an apology from Anita Hill--a woman with real class and dignity. Appalling person.
What does she think she herself is, as a working woman, arguably taking away jobs from the men who traditionally did those jobs? Wonder if she feels like a performing wonder phenom (like the horse that could "count"), given that she would prefer women not to have working success.
Since she opposed the Family Leave Act, did she ever face the situation of being pregnant and hoping to continue working after the baby was born? Or as the wife of a Supreme Court Justice, was she so desirable to the folks who would "never" try to take advantage of the relationship, that the question never came up? Flaming hypocrite. Fits perfectly into Republican politics.
14
@Paula
Don’t forget that her own inter-racial marriage was deemed a danger to ‘traditional’ marriage and illegal in much of the country. She’s just an awful person.
3
Would Mrs. Thomas have scored an audience with the President of the United States if her husband did not sit on the Supreme Court? Maybe. But we may be forgiven if we believe that her marriage opened doors that are closed to most citizens.
Was it unethical for her to exploit her marriage to Justice Thomas in gaining access to the President? No. Wives have no ethical obligation to abandon their own politics just because their spouses are officers of the government. But the optics of what she did are bad and, as Linda Greenhouse remarks, her performance was in bad taste. Altogether, the episode reflects poorly on Mrs. Thomas and her right-wing cause. Surely, this was not the outcome she hoped for, although it's to be acknowledged that she might not care how things look to the rest of us.
A more interesting question is whether her husband shares her partisan view of the courts. Does he think of himself as a "Republican judge"? Probably not. But what truly matters here is that his judicial decisions have an unmistakable partisan cast. Mrs. Thomas and Justice Thomas are two sides of the same coin. She at least has the virtue of appearing in public wearing her true face.
2
@Stephen N
You’re Canadian and therefore ‘nice’.
Justice Clarence is definitely partisan, always a ‘safe’ vote for right-wing issues. He rarely speaks during a case and I’m not sure he evens listens to arguments. His vote is clear before the Court publishes its decision.
He and his odious wife share their right-wing political views. I believe they have appeared at right-wing events together.
4
For conservatives the rules of behavior are that they and those they support are free to do whatever they choose while those they oppose are to be condemned for even the slightest indiscretion. For example, Al Franken had to be driven out of the Senate for his childish behavior, while Donald Trump's misogyny, his paying off of mistresses and gleeful bragging about sexual assault are no big deal.
10
This story is bottomed on a dilusional concern. It offends our intelligence.
1
Would this column have been written if, say, Justice Breyer’s wife discussed issues with President Obama? Or is it only troublesome because Ms. Thomas is a far-right conservative?
3
@ERT yes and impeachment proceedings would’ve been started by the Republicans in Congress against Justice Breyer.
8
@ERT
Did Justice Breyer’s wife discuss issues with President Obama? No she did not. Neither have other spouses. Mrs Thomas has.
If you think it would be wrong for Mrs Breyers to have spoken to the President, you must think Mrs Thomas was wrong in this case. I agree.
5
You write, "the days when wives were expected to do little more than be decorative has, thankfully, passed." Was that in 2016 when Trump won the election? I recall Michelle Obama was widely criticized by the right for doing nothing more than advocating for children's nutrition. But even if I fully endorse the right of wives to be politically active, is there not some line being crossed when a Supreme Court Justice's wife gets to meet with the President and urges a policy which will eventually be ruled upon by her husband? It's rather like the Supreme Court becoming both a legislative and an executive voice in our government.
11
Just another depressing example of the loss of dignity in public discourse, in which impunity trumps propriety.
Conservatives, contrary to the protection of traditional values that their name implies, wish to conserve nothing but their own patriarchal privilege, power and wealth.
15
"“The people must have confidence in the integrity of the justices,” Justice Scalia wrote, “and that cannot exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible by the slightest friendship or favor, and in an atmosphere where the press will be eager to find foot faults.”
So, when Ginni Thomas and her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas, accept an invitation to dine at the White House, we are supposed to believe that the dinner was a social affair and anything untoward would not have been discussed. Of course not.
Unfortunately for all of us, the service of Justice Thomas on the Court has been a strange one. He has been either sullenly silent, moodily withdrawn or has angrily lashed out at any policy that is in the center. His wife has a long-standing history of advocacy on the hard right. One might assume from the briefest glance at his votes across his 27 years on the Court that he was coached by his spouse. No serious citizen would begin to think that his mind is his own. On the record, how is it possible to extend to the Justice the courtesy of a benefit of the doubt?
What most concerns me is the bald and blatant appearance of the Thomas couple at the White House at the invitation of a president whose view of the law is that it exists to serve the wealthy, the powerful or the corrupt.
We are a complex society and transgender citizens should be afforded every respect. Justice Thomas, an African-American man, should know about these things. He is the face of resentment.
15
Wasn't Scalia's son working for the G.W. Bush campaign at the time of the Supreme Court ruling on the presidential election of 2000?
7
I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to know ins and outs of what is codified re: ethics and appropriateness.
But best I can judge Ms. Greenhouse is right; as much as I'd like to NOT agree and fight the opposite side.
I want to vomit re: her politics and access to power but to be fair I do NOT think Ms. Thomas is grounds for recusal.
Yes I do think the spouses cohort - but that's life.
Yes Ms. Thomas is playing in the sandbox of power. She has the ear of movers and shakers including the President.
She certainly has the ear and the commiseration of her husband Justice Thomas - she is his soul mate.
She is not just a citizen who is involved in causes who happens to be the spouse of a judge.
But in and by itself we have to mostly accept that a judge only has to recluse:
if they are deciding on a case they were/are involved in,
have real fiduciary/power ties directly or indirectly to decision,
has predetermined preset mind re: the case at hand,
has an overwhelming bigotry (including religious type objections) that would preclude a decision that violates the bigotry/theology/prejudice.
And for those reasons Justice Thomas is a horrible judge - EVERY decision known in advance in his mind - radically theologically/RWA doctrinaire - has vengeance against "left" because of his confirmation that overwhelms fairness.
Regardless of merits NO way he'll decide against his own narrow mind. Show me one time he did!
If he was ethical he'd recluse himself permanently.
9
This is where we are. It is no wonder that citizens are cynical and feeling overwhelmed. I believe this to be the intent of the culture wars that the republican party and their zealots like Mrs. Thomas wage. The job of the press and Linda Greenhouse is to clarify and what a good job she has done here. Thank you. But, how does this weigh against the haranguing and fear mongering of right wing pundits and a lying president?
7
I knew Ginny Thomas professionally when I worked at the Labor Department while she was a political appointee. I knew her socially because of mutual friends. At a birthday party in 2000, during the campaign, she told me she was working at the Hertage Foundation compiling lists of candidates to fill jobs in a Bush administration. When I asked her if she also hoped to return to a position in the administration, she said she hoped to get a high-level position. Later, when Gore vs. Bush was pending, I questioned whether Justice Thomas should recuse himself because he had a direct pecuniary interest (if Bush won, his wife could get a job). I was not aware of the 1993 policy until I read your column. Certainly it appears Justice Thomas should have recused himself.
19
In the case that most undermined faith in the impartiality of the Supreme Court, Bush vs Gore in the year 2000, one could argue that both Justices Thomas and Scalia should have recused themselves because of apparent conflicts of interest. Justice Thomas' wife and Justice Scalia's son directly or indirectly benefited from the Court's decision that led to George Bush's election.
The issue is not about the freedom of Ms. Thomas.
It is about the integrity of the Court.
Now of course the integrity of the Supreme Court is almost laughable.
31
@rshapley
The integrity of the court, and the legitimacy of the court, are quite simply non-existent since the installation of Neil Gorsuch.*
2
the us supreme court is yet another worn out example of our antiquated constitutional etiquette. It, along with the US Senate and the Electoral College and some political party procedures have got to get canned. After that, maybe, tricksters like Trump won't prevail.The electorate has to ask themselves how they got to here.
Let's get over this Founding Fathers Nationalism and get with NOW.
11
She is his public voice, says the things he can't. Everyone knows that, knows what her husband thinks.
12
"The question now is whether his colleagues on the bench — his own and all the others — will show him to be right, or sadly naïve."
I think the answer is already here and it's neither. Roberts is a shill for right-wing ideologues and power grabs. The Court has no integrity. And the people know it.
15
In a word, yes, her actions do cross the line. She is entitled to any opinion she chooses to have, but meeting with the president, officially not socially, is completely unacceptable. Not that DJT could be swayed by any advice from any source, as he believes he needs no advice and is evidenced by his actions. It certainly does give an insight into the dinner table conversation between Justice Thomas and his wife though, and that is just as troubling. There she has much, much more influence and ability to color her husband's opinions.
13
No mention is made of the fact that Ginni Thomas has been handsomely compensated for her political activities. She has added up to $700,000/year to the family income through those activities. And Justice Thomas "forgot" to report that income on his financial disclosure forms. For seven years.
It seems to me that this amount of money changes the calculus.
120
@vibise Good comment. I should have known that there was a money angle behind her nutty opinions. Is this a great country or what? All of these right wing republicans who can grow wealthy spreading nutty opinions and, in some cases, just plain hate.
Why does anyone try to get money through crime when so much can be made through legal grift -- that is right wing news/entertainment, lobbying, etc.
19
@vibise As the saying goes..."Follow the Money"
6
While Ginni Thomas' activities are permissible, they are not ethical for someone in her position. Yes, she is the wife of a Supreme Court judge and should not use this as a gateway for her political activities. Then, again she is married to a justice whose past conduct was amoral. Maybe it runs in the family.
38
I worry less about Ms. Thomas (let her get angry at that Ms.),for her views and those of her husband are probably pretty much in line.
The problem is that the man in the White House has no conception of separation of powers, no standards of ethics and no concern for the majority of the country.
A real President would listen to Ms. Thomas courteously, and then show her the door. This man, influenced by the commenters on Fox news, is likely to see Ms. Thomas as another person whose good opinion is to be sought.
16
One can only imagine the outcry and derision if one of the spouses of the liberal judges had visited President Obama and advocated for issues that were then before the court. It seems like behavior that is ok for the right leaning judges' is not ok for the moral liberal wing. Which is exactly where we are politically in this time.
62
“. “The people must have confidence in the integrity of the justices,” Justice Scalia wrote, “and that cannot exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible by the slightest friendship or favor, and in an atmosphere where the press will be eager to find foot faults.”
I do not think that regularly duck hunting with someone can be called the “slightest friendship.” A good example of Scalia’s intellectual slights of hand.
33
Perhaps Supreme Court justices’ spouses’ freedom-of-speech rights should be preserved. Yet, they should should certainly NOT be meeting with any president on behalf of their organizations; it begs the question if they would have had access at all were it not for their spouse. If privileged access is available, it should be met with equal access and time for those with an opposing point-of-view.
32
Both justice Thomas and his wife are serving life terms. Whether trump stays or goes the thomases will be here for a long time, affecting the future of our country. Children are this country’s future, and she has no compassion either the children, or our country.
31
I found this quote most interesting: “The people must have confidence in the integrity of the justices,” Justice Scalia wrote, “and that cannot exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible by the slightest friendship or favor, and in an atmosphere where the press will be eager to find foot faults.”
Among the many questions this statement begs is: Does a judge --or justice-- ever lie? Which begs the follow-up: Does lying disqualify a judge or a justice from being on the bench?
The answer to the first, I hold, is an unqualified yes. It is how the second is answered, by those wearing the robes, that troubles.
Ms. Thomas has every right as an American to engage in all her politically, religiously motivated activities. It is the truthfulness of Justice Thomas's responses to any questions that might be posed to him regarding whether any "pillow talk" could nudge his assessment of a case one direction or the other.
That Thomas's radical right leanings and agenda make this a moot or even silly question is not the point.
I'm also skeptical about how scrupulously the recusal clause regarding a law firms compensation to justices' attorney relatives is followed. Does --has?-- an audit ever been done to assure such compliance?
14
The rights of communication of citizens should be curtailed only for the most serious of reasons. Sub rosa discussions about cases with judges, obnoxious though they be, do not put The Republic in danger. For this reason alone, Ginni Thomas should be unhindered in her political work, in the world and at home.
Two other reasons for toleration come to mind.
1) This is not a unique problem. For example, Abe Fortas had been President Johnson's lawyer a decade or two before LBJ secured his elevation to the Court in the mid-60s.
The two continued their old tradition of conferring while Fortas was a justice. Fortas gave political advice to LBJ, while the President solicited information on the opinions of the justices concerning his Great Society legislation.
2) One shouldn't establish conventions for behavior that are stillborn. Wouldn't a restriction on conversation at home put under a shadow dozens or hundreds of our high officials, unless ignored by the political class? Which is what would happen.
3
@alyosha Term limits for SCJustices, YES!!!
1
When the spouse of a SCOTUS justice publically advocates a position relating to a case coming before the Court, the justice should recuse from that case. Even if the couple disagree on the matter, the appearance going forward will be that the justice is biased by his/her spouse's position.
As SCOTUS becomes more politicized, recusals in such cases are essencial to preserving the legitimacy of the Court.
42
There are two issues involved here. First, what ethical moral rules can or should apply to the families particularly adult kids and spouses of Supreme Court Justices. Second, what ethical rules apply to Supreme Court Justices.
With respect to the first issue any action that calls into question the legal and equity impact policy bias and ethics of the Justices should matter most. What is or should be the role of a Supreme Court immediate family member? Whatever it is Virginia Thomas has clearly and repeatedly crossed any basic commonsense fundamental ethical line. But there is no formal process nor structure for enforcing these norms against private citizen family members Justices.
With regard to the second issue avoiding even the appearance of impropriety is the fundamental ethical obligation of the legal profession. The Supreme Court of the United States is the pinnacle of the least democratic branch of our divided Justices are appointed for life by nomination of the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Impeachment in the House and trial and conviction in the Senate is the only way they can be removed from office.
But ethical issues in the legal profession are tied to and controlled by state and federal bars. While federal bar membership is controlled by the federal bar in each local and appellate judicial districts. There is also a Supreme Court bar. None of these bars have any jurisdiction over family members of judges.
2
Whether left or right it seems the country is being run by cliques. Think highschool and student councils. There's really not much difference between what had to endure as teens and what have now.
How do we get ordinary people involved sufficiently to change this. Voting is one step, but we need to stand behind our votes.
9
She frighteningly crosses political line that exposes her husband Justice Clarence Thomas to severe scrutiny as to his own motivations and alignments with the characters of the same extreme mindset, and discredits him as a Supreme Court Judge. It follows Anita Hill's characterization of him when he was nominated for the position and should send a clear message of how lethal he is to demcracy.
32
Does anybody remember Martha Mitchell? Any discussion of the possibility of spousal influence on powerful decision makers needs to include Martha Mitchell; for a little comic relief, if for no other reason.
Full disclosure; my politics are liberal/progressive that are well left of center and well right of Marx/Lenin.
Any liberal condemning the political activism of Ginni Thomas would do well to consider the activities of another political couple; Bill and Hillary Clinton. Were either one of them silent while one was governor then president and the other was a senator then Sec. of State? Did either one ever seek the council of the other before making a decision? (I certainly hope so.)
Isn't it one of the pillars of feminism that one does not cede one's identity with marriage vows?
6
If the progressive spouse of a non conservative Justice were doing comparable work on the progressive side, how loud, unrelenting, and angry would be the screaming from the right?
How quickly would the far right, including the tin foil hats, be barking at the moon?
It's not even a question that two standards of acceptable conduct are in play; right-wing activism is fine and dandy and progressive activism is unacceptable.
48
I like many of the commentators here, feel that there is an inequality that Ginni Thomas has that most all of us do not which of course is her access to high government persons and offices based mostly or partly on her husbands position on the Supreme Court.
Whether this is really true or not does not discount the reality that most ordinary citizen's letters for a meeting with the president and his staff go pretty much unnoticed.
Add to this her purpose for the original White House meeting outlined in the NY Times article where "...she brought fellow members of a group called Groundswell, the topics discussed included why women and transgender people should not be permitted to serve in the military and how same-sex marriage is damaging the country.." was to comment on the WH staff's approach to these issues.
It goes without saying that all of these issues are before the Supreme Court and no matter how you view these issues there is just something that does not feel quite right about the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice publicly advocating positions that are under consideration of the court.
54
The only fallacy with this column is that the subhead has a question mark. Thomas's wife's political activities do not merely cross the line, they obliterate it to such an extent that it no longer exists.
57
"So where does all this leave the outspoken Ms. Thomas? She’s broken no rules except the rules of good taste. What she’s violated are longstanding norms of behavior."
Very thoughtful opinion as always Linda. Thank you.
So maybe it's time to change the rules so sa to reflect the role of women in today's society. Our present rules were written at a time when women were mostly absent from the the business and political worlds. their destiny was to be wives and mothers or maybe nurses and teachers. Mostly.
And the "wives of powerful men were expected to do little more than serve tea and look decorative has...". And that's when the rules Ms Thomas didn't break were adopted.
New times require new rules because women aren't going back to what some still call the "good old days".
15
Certain norms --- particularly those having to do with justice, freedom of the press, and basic human decency --- are not merely a matter of acceptable behavior but part of our country's bedrock foundation. Republicans have been dynamiting that bedrock.
36
There is no such thing as a line too far for Conservatives to cross ...to avoid military service...to carry out their political ideology...to avoid paying taxes...to serve as apologists for Trump or whoever the conservative standard bearer happens to be.
83
@Ludwig I make no apologies for Ted Kennedy (he was never my senator), but in 21st-century America, one of our two main political parties is far more corrupt and unhinged than the other. It is partisan to believe otherwise.
2
Ginni Thomas has broken rules of good taste when she called Prof. Anita Hill and left her a message telling Hill to apologize to her husband, Clarence Thomas, years after his confirmation to the Supreme Court. She may be his wife, but this was not her business--it was an official Senate hearing under oath.
84
It seems the facts here go beyond the spouse of a justice having freedom of speech and career. Here Ms. Thomas went to a party of interest in future court decisions and asked for a favor. It is hard to imagine that there was not an implied quid pro quo. Justice Thomas should recuse himself from all matters raised at the meeting coming before him.
170
@Steve
Yes. But he won't.
16
Of course it crosses a line. But since the minute Trump was elected more lines have been crossed than can even be counted.
99
Mrs Thomas' actions reflect a theme prevalent among conservatives and the religious right in recent years: There is no such thing as a line too far. No norm is honored, no protocol respected, no law applicable if it's deemed not beneficial to the interests of the increasingly radical right.
Despite Scalia's notion that “The people must have confidence in the integrity of the justices,” this administration has raised plenty of questions about the integrity not only of the justices, but about law enforcement of at all levels, including the judiciary at large.
On the other hand, the judiciary has been the last line of defense against some of the administration's more egregious violations, including the travel ban, family separation, and rollbacks of protective regulations. Republican attempts to pack the courts with conservative, sometimes unqualified judges, threatens to stretch this line to a breaking point.
Charles Pierce of Esquire coined the term "mole people." America's history is replete with grifters who blatantly disrespect or disregard norms and laws, and are content to put their self interests ahead of anything and anyone.
Perhaps Ginny Thomas has broken no laws, but she, like many of her ilk more recently unleashed by Trump's example, is truly a mole person.
92
@SMKNC thank you for your comment. I think that most working Americans and those who are different in some way realize exactly how our justice system and other "systems" work. America is a very conformist country. The only time individual anything is invoked is when it's inconvenient for our politicians to deal with the exceptions to their norms. It's these attitudes more than anything else that have left many Americans, especially those who are not rich, are not male, or are not white, or are not conformists in the extreme, to despise and distrust our legal system, our health/wealth care system, our schools, etc.
It doesn't take the breaking of a law to undermine a group's trust. All it takes is conduct similar to Ginni Thomas's or to a large corporation throwing money and lobbyists at a problem instead of owning and fixing it.
1
If Ginni Thomas truly cared about our nation she would stop with the extreme partisan activities. Anything that makes the Supreme Court look partisan is bad for American democracy. If she was doing actual academic research and publishing her findings in peer-reviewed journals, that would be different. But, she is working with extreme right-wing characters, such as Hannity, who actively undermine American democracy.
131
@Anthony,
Like one of them threatening half the country with judicial revenge during his job interview where he perjured himself repeatedly while under oath?
John "5-4" roberts' court is as big a joke as roberts himself.
12
I, too, find Ginni Thomas' behavior questionable. Whatever happened to the "appearance" of corruption? Quaint, I know. This woman has no boundaries. She had the nerve to call Anita Hill - at night, no less - in recent years about her testimony during the Thomas confirmation hearings. The kindest thing that could be said about the call was that it was tasteless and intrusive. Although, personally, I thought at the time that she had probably been drinking. Hill has class; Thomas has gall.
I find it deeply inappropriate for Ginni Thomas to be a lobbyist and even worse for her to be meeting with the equally boundary challenged president. Surely, she could labor for her chosen cause of spreading the good word about bigotry by joining a think tank instead.
It will be a good day for America when Thomas is gone from the bench. He has been a blot on it from the start. Her actions don't help.
As for the reputation of the Roberts' court, that horse left the barn years ago. We know how they will rule before the opening arguments begin.
353
Thank you Linda. I always find your columns thought provoking and this is no different. I am not sure what to think about Ginni Thomas's work but I agree that it is both troubling and unfortunately not surprising in this day and age.
31
Linda Greenhouse is a thoughtful, well-informed observer of the federal judiciary – particularly of the United States Supreme Court.
On rare occasions, however, Ms. Greenhouse is dead wrong. Her acceptance of the conduct of Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, is one of those occasions.
Ms. Thomas has met with President Trump -- a man for whom the term, “conflict of interest,” applies only to people critical of him – and urged her views regarding issues now coming before the Supreme Court. She has publicly railed against “the left” in America and made no attempt to distance herself from her husband.
The Supreme Court insists that it is the sole arbiter of its own ethical responsibilities, but it cannot and must not shirk its duty to all Americans to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
That appearance is more than a political tilt to the right or the left. It is the toleration of behavior which would cause reasonable persons coming before the Court to lose confidence in a fair hearing and disposition of their cases.
Every member of the Supreme Court is also a licensed lawyer, and no one of them can be permitted to decide that after elevation to the Court that he or she may ignore a solemn oath taken years ago.
The oath at issue is not the one taken when sworn in as a new Supreme Court Justice. It is the one taken when that Justice first became a lawyer.
Clarence Thomas did not shed the burden of that earlier oath when he became Justice Thomas.
178
@sdw Oath? Justice Thomas took an oath to tell the truth and then lied to Congress, something Trump's minions are currently being prosecuted for. The issue is not whether Ginni Thomas is allowed to have her own opinion and express it, the issue is whether her opinion carries more political weight because of her being married to Justice Thomas. It does and her lobbying reflects poorly on her, on him, and on anyone who would pay attention to her 19th century ideas.
127
@sdw "Her acceptance of the conduct of Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, is one of those occasions." Uhh did you actually read the whole article?
3
@sdw
I am pondering the existential question: what makes people hate? And why do those selfsame haters want so very badly to control the rest of us? Does their current incarnation reveal bad karma? And are the rest of us doomed to suffer the inflictions of pain on those of us who just wanna get on with living our best lives-of wanting to make the world better, not more hateful?
28
"It’s hard to think of a more delicate moment for the court, pressed at every turn by an administration that seems to regard it as a wholly owned subsidiary of the White House and that has driven the normally reticent chief justice to declare, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges.”"
Yes, Ginni Thomas seems to have only broken laws of good taste, but consider that within the growing body of evidence that "norms-busting" is threatening our social fabric.
Civility and propriety have gone missing in our politics, media, and culture. I'm beginning to wonder if America as we knew it before Mr. Trump foisted himself 24/7 on our national consciousness will ever return?
My problem with Ginni Thomas is the double standard that Congress and media consensus seems to apply to behavior that gets condoned in Republicans who would never allow the same if done by Democrats.
Ms. Greenhouse says, let "Ginni be Ginni." But when this opinionated lawyer-lobbyist throws herself at the White House, espousing religious and judicial views she has no business pushing, I think the American public deserve to know why.
Because of her husband, Ginni grabs access to the president none of us have, despite our own strong views on the subject of civil liberties for all. Maybe she broke no rules in the strictest legal sense, but she sure has broken the boundaries of fairness.
487
@ChristineMcM I agree with your conclusion regarding her access to Trump. Would she have the same privilege of personally lobbying him if she was not the spouse of Clarence Thomas? Her husband's selection for the high court was unseemly. His tenure since being seated is the proof of that. Her exploitation of her connection to him to advance hateful and extremist policies is despicable.
73
I have known dozens of judges over the years. Dozens. I have observed probably 60-70 confirmation hearings for state judges. I cannot imagine putting the spouse’s work or ideology at issue. Perhaps I am naive, I don’t think so, I am fairly certain that judges do not discuss their work, particularly written opinions with their spouses. I would normally be shocked at the suggestion raised by the author, except that I do believe Justice Thomas has been shabbily treated by the media for decades. This is more of the same.
7
@Mary Ann
" I am fairly certain that judges do not discuss their work, particularly written opinions with their spouses."
Yes, but no other judge is married to Ginni Thomas. If she believes it is OK for her to lobby the President, do you honestly believe she would stop at browbeating her husband.
No one knows what goes on in a marriage, but Ginni Thomas' and her husband's behavior on and off the bench invite incredulity on this issue.
7
@Mary Ann
How does "observ[ing] probably 60-70 confirmation hearings for state judges" relate to Ginni Thomas? She isn't a judge or justice.
Yes, you are naive. Of course judges discuss cases with their partners, particularly if that person is another lawyer. Doctors discuss cases; psychologists discuss cases; everyone discusses their workday with their spouse. Not using names and identifying information, but discussing all the same.
4
Mr. Thomas is not the brightest light in the room. His wife has proven herself a bit coarse. In Brett Kavanaugh we see the same self-righteous mendacity before Congress. And Gorsuch looks like Mike Pence.
We are really in for it.
5
The question of whether Justice Thomas might be improperly swayed by his wife seems a bit off target. His views mirror hers, as is true in many marriages, and he would likely hold those views, and act on them on the court, if he were not married to her.
18
Since the Supreme Court has determined that the standard for corruption is an explicit quid pro quo complete with witnesses and documentation, the antics of Ginni Thomas are harmless. But Ms. Greenhouse, and others deeply involved with the Supreme Court, are delusional if they believe that the public sees the Justices as impartial. Bush v. Gore drove the final stake into that idea. Their votes are purely political, all the gobbledygook about judicial restraint, legal philosophies, and fealty to the Constitution not withstanding.
302
@syfredrick
Your conclusion is one unfortunately shared by many of us. There should be no question with regard to the fairness and impartiality of judicial decisions.
Politics is the one folder which should never be carried into the halls of justice.
10
@syfredrick
Maybe we should use a different criteria for appointing Supreme Court Justices? What about having the judges (circuit Court, or State Supreme Courts) vote on who should be a Supreme Court Justice? Like the Pope. I know it will be political in a sense, but could it be more political than it is now, with a party president naming a person for that position and the congress voting for them? Maybe the POTUS could nominate the SCJ and both houses vote on them? or the lower courts vote, as their opinions would be the ones that are debated by the SCJ? There just has to be a better way.
1
The important question is not whether the Thomas couple gets opinions in part from her, but whether they derive financial benefit from her lobbying/political interests. To the other point raised, her activities show poor taste and temperament. (As do, IMHO, his court opinions).
55
Influence isn’t something that can be easily pardoned. Look no further than our present political environment where families are deeply divided. Hopefully justice is bipartisan, at least that’s what the framers of our constitution were banking on.
Thanksgiving family gatherings are NOT the same as going to bed at night with your spouse. Decisions have consequences and most human beings can be influenced by their partners, regardless of their oaths of office.
15
Well everyone is entitled to their opinions but I do wonder
how much she reflects the views of Clarence Thomas. They both seem to be against so many things. Maybe I am wrong but my view is that both of them inhabit a world of white, successful, "normal," people. Anyone that is different -- working women, the poor, the dark-skinned, LGBT, etc. is not welcomed.
Maybe I don't know enough about Mrs. Thomas, but my opinion is that she is pretty much a crank with hard right views. In the first paragraph the article says that "she was a smart lawyer-lobbyist working for the U. S. Chamber of Commerce against the Family and Medical Leave Act." Is she smart? She seems to be opposed to anything that will be good for women (particularly working women) and anybody else that is different -- such as LGBT. She seems to say that white men have lots of rights, but women and others who are different have no rights -- or should not be treated the same as the rest of society. Women have been serving in the military for 20 or 30 years or more; I don't know how long transgender people have been in the military but there are thousands in the services. It seems that most of the leadership of the Pentagon and the military is fine with women, gays, transgender, etc. in the military, does Ginni Thomas know more that they do?
The Con Don was probably eager to hear from Ginni. But I think that most people will think that she is a nut.
233
@Aubrey I failed to deal with the question -- Do the political activities of Justice Clarence Thomas's wife cross a line?
No, to be improper her activities would need to be tied to a specific case where there is clear monetary advantage if the court adopted her views.
Everyone who follows the court has already made up his/her mind about Clarence Thomas. Her activities will just confirm those views. Like many of the "conservative" justices, Clarence Thomas just decides cases according to his biases and prejudices then uses ideas such as "originalism" "textualism" "strict construction" to dress them up as "great constitutional principles."
50
@Aubrey.. Are we to believe that only conservative justices decide cases according to their biases and prejudices and liberal justices do not?
1
@Aaron Adams The point is that liberal justices don't hide behind high-minded but false "principles" that are contorted to fit the opinion du jour. There are "activist judges" on both sides of the divide.
6
In one word. YES! She is empowered by his position to use his influence to achieve her goals.
89
With a different justice this would greatly concern me - that "pillow talks" with his spouse might somehow sway his opinions. But with Thomas, whose every position is already in the can, no such worries. If it were the Chief Justice, I'd be greatly concerned, as he has demonstrated at least a modicum of judicial consideration.
22
The notion that my spouse's opinions are my responsibility or under my control is a difficult proposition to defend.
I have friends who are judges - not one, over the years, has said to me "Gee, I was going to decide one way and then I spoke to my spouse, and I decided in the other direction."
Is this writer suggesting that spouses of judges should also be interviewed prior to the appointment of any judge?
12
@Maurice Gatien, no what Linda Greenhouse, a wonderkind of the Court is saying is that this is a time when SCOTUS cannot be courted on to be impartial. And every single misstep puts democracy at risk.
8
@Maurice Gatien
I was once excluded from a jury scheduled to hear a criminal case because I had an uncle who was a retired policeman. Based on the questions presented to the potential jurors, I understood that this was a fairly common practice.
My uncle had no hold over my beliefs, and I agree with Mr. Gatien's observation that he has no hold over his wife's. But the question is not whether one controls one's spouse's beliefs, but whether an avowed advocate of positions on major issues can even appear to influence someone in a position to support such stands by inappropriate leverage.
1
Boy did you get yourself into a pretzel over this. Every single one of us is a bundle of biases. To think otherwise, is to just play pretend.
The best we can do is hope that by sitting together and discussing our divergent viewpoints we may come to a fragile consensus that will last for a little while. That goes for the Supremes too.
7
While Ginni and Clarence Thomas are married they are two separate individuals, and it does not matter if they share many of the same values. The only issue we should be concerned about is whether Clarence's value preferences control or unduly influence his objectivity in legal decision-making. This has nothing to do with Ginni and everything to do with Clarence.
23
“The people must have confidence in the integrity of the justices,” as Scalia himself is quoted as saying. Of course he adds that such confidence will be eroded if we assume they might be corruptible because of friendship or other ties. Guess what. After all that has passed in the past few years, any reasonable person would be nuts NOT to suspect the potential corruptibility of anyone in public service. The refusal to recuse just looks like the normalization of bias. Citizens United just looks like SCOTUS has ties to big business. When McConnell promises that he’s going to crank through conservative judges so that pro life interests will be served, why should we believe that any form of impartial hearing is possible or even desired by the justice system? This whole topic feels terribly sad—an example of absolute power corrupting absolutely. And obviously those with the most power who still seek justice are silent.
515
@Elizabeth
Think, Amazing what actual majority rule can do.
6
@Elizabeth
While most people confine their activism by writing comments to the NYT, being a spouse of a Supreme Court Justice, you are handed a megaphone and instant credibility. Her husband swings a lot of power in the court. Now, when Thomas was appointed, after his “lynching” speech, he didn’t say, “Oh, my wife will be campaigning relentlessly for right wing causes throughout my tenure.” He didn’t say that because it rightfully impugns his integrity. This exposes the flaw in lifetime appointments, because as odorous as her behavior is, there is nothing we can do about it, since his job is protected. In fact, Thomas barely shows up for work, before Scalia died, he merely mirrored everything he did. Clearly, during the nominating process, wives must be asked about their involvement. "Mrs, Kavanaugh, in between making beer runs for the Justice, will you campaigning for extraneous causes like greater freedoms for prep school attendees?"
19
Perhaps the real issue resides not with Ms. Thomas but the justice himself. Does he have the character and discipline to avoid being influenced by his spouse? Or is she a partner in all aspects of his life including judicial decisions?
112
The answer is no. He is one of the most incurious, least eloquent that ever were. When my sister clerked for another SCOTUS judge about 10 year ago, she was horrified that Thomas’ clerks did everything without him having any input. Their learning experiences were without guidance as opposed to hers where her boss was involved in everything.
33
@Horsepower
Exactly my thought too, seems that this is not about the spouse of a Justice, but the actions of a Justice. This is more disturbing news re Thomas.
8
What's missing is the need for personal sacrifice. Each individual mentioned in the article did not or would not sacrifice their personal choices for the overall appearance of propriety.
49
@Richard Mclaughlin
Ah, Martin Ginsberg did the right thing by leaving his law practice and becoming a professor. One would think everyone with a spouse joining the court would be equally discreet, but one would be mistaken in that belief.
20
@Richard McLaughlin Ginni Thomas is privileged. Her privilege is that she is married to a Supreme Court Justice and, through that connection, she gains credibility (warranted or not) for her causes. Remember what happened to Geraldine Ferraro when her husband did a few questionable things with respect to finances? Today, if she was a Republican, no one would even care. It would be normal. (Yes this is an oversimplification but it's similar enough.)
The GOP has been blurring the lines for decades. Ginni Thomas is merely taking advantage of it to push her 1950s agenda which, as I and others have pointed out, would mean her marriage to Clarence Thomas is hypocritical in the extreme.
3
One is reminded of Trollope's immortal character Mrs. Proudie, who similarly speaks for her taciturn husband, the Bishop, in the Barchester Chronicles.
41
@Richard Waugaman
Mrs. Proudie, one of the best drawn characters in all of Victorian Literature. Ha Ha
5