Justice Thomas ignores basic ethics where wife's activism, lobbying conflict with cases. Jane Mayer, chief Washington correspondent for the New Yorker, talks about her new reporting on the activism and paid affiliations and lobbying of Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, that Justice Thomas does not acknowledge conflict with cases before the Supreme Court from which he should recuse himself. (MSNBC). Ginni Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, last week signed an open letter calling for the 6 January committee’s two Republican members to be ousted from the House GOP conference.
Her husband was the sole Supreme Court justice to vote against releasing Donald Trump’s White House documents about the riots at the US Capitol in an 8-1 decision on Thursday. (MSNBC)
THIS NOT ONLY SHOULD MATTER, BUT MUST MATTER!
Clarence Thomas wants the United States laws to be interpreted HIS way, and no other way. From his early days of questionable habits and attitudes toward women, to his SUBJECTIVE views on law and order, good from bad, to his mis-definitions of conservatism as a vehicle of discrimination, this POLITICAL PUPPET has made freedom and honor, truth, and honesty just a bunch of PATSYS! And now, Mrs. Clarence Thomas, GINNIE, has demonstrated a loathing for democracy, the common decency of respecting voting rights, has determined that the “BIG LIE,” whose sole intent as I see it is to bring and AUTOCRATIC form of FASCISM into the lives of ALL Americans, to be HER motivation to help overthrow a legitimate government.
Clarence Thomas should be held accountable by his peers, and the rest of this nation for his ARROGANCE, in NOT RECUSING himself, in a case by which his OWN wife has provided enough evidence to be held accountable for the actions and reactions of January 6! How does America IMPEACH A JUSTICE? CAN AMERICANS IMPEACH A JUSTICE? And as an aside, on a personal note as an American, who among many other attributes, happens to be GAY, the audacity of the man to deny SAME-SEX MARRIAGES, stating somehow the Constitution did not have that type of marriage in mind…You know the same Constitution which never had the Negro and the White ever marrying, and in which state laws demanded was ILLEGAL. But for Clarence,(my way and not your way), he had no problem speaking in the typical verbiage of HYPOCRITCAL!
