Justices decide for themselves when to step aside from cases

She's just another crackpot.

Why? Nothing unusual here.

Thomas should have recused himself when Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment on the grounds that, regardless of innocence or guilt, the accusation created public distrust of the Supreme Court. Thomas and his Republican supporters, however, went ahead and appointed him anyway. What his wife or Justice Thomas have done to promote Trump and his attempted insurrection should come as no surprise to anybody. The man has no business on the Supreme Court.

Thomas should have recused himself when Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment on the grounds that, regardless of innocence or guilt, the accusation created public distrust of the Supreme Court.

That has been the feeling for the long time even RBG the activist justice ever to have sat on the bench.

Thomas and his Republican supporters, however, went ahead and appointed him anyway.

And the left will get their pick of a new controversial activist justice that can’t even give a clear definition of what a woman is.

What his wife or Justice Thomas have done to promote Trump and his attempted insurrection should come as no surprise to anybody. The man has no business on the Supreme Court.

If you go by that then we could say a lot of people don’t belong on the court and that includes Jackson.

If you go by that then we could say a lot of people don’t belong on the court and that includes Jackson.

Can you show me evidence of Jackson supporting in insurrection?

Oh, of course not.

Conservatives are such hypocrites. They love nepotism (one certain poster said that Trump’s nepotism was good and cool, even if it was bad for the country), hate democracy (the rule of the people), and worship the power of the wealthy - then turn around and say, “we hate the elite!”.

But for them, the “elite” are like, podcasters who say things like “racism is bad”.

Can you show me evidence of Jackson supporting in insurrection?

No, but she doesn’t seem to support protecting children from pedophiles If you lay it out like that.

Conservatives are such hypocrites.

The left can’t even go there

hate democracy (the rule of the people),

Quite the opposite

The revelations about Thomas' texts come at a time when groups have already been calling for ethics guidelines for justices. Congress has also been looking at the issue.

That SCOTUS justices have no code of ethics is frankly shocking.

Roberts noted in 2011 that the Supreme Court is different from lower courts because no one can step in if a justice recuses. In his year-end report, Roberts wrote that means a justice “cannot withdraw from a case as a matter of convenience or simply to avoid controversy.”

Fortuitous, isn't it? You can't recuse yourself from cases where you have a vested interest. Seems rather crooked. As does all the Federalist society getaways for judges.

Can you just imagine if back in 2016 what the Repubs would have done if Justice Breyer's wife had sent e-mails to Rahm Emanuel saying that Trump's election was bogus and needed to be rescinded and decided in the Supreme Court....

You'd have to peel them off the Congressional ceiling...

But now? No problem here, move along....

MAGA-hypocrisy....

And here we are with liberals saying women don’t have the right to have and express their own opinions and thoughts separate from their husbands.

her comments have no connection to her husbands job. Which liberals would love to take from him.

And here we are with liberals saying women don’t have the right to have and express their own opinions and thoughts separate from their husbands.

Where did anyone say that?

her comments have no connection to her husbands job. Which liberals would love to take from him.

That's not true. How'd congress access to the text messages between Thomas and POTUS chief of staff?

And here we are with liberals saying women don’t have the right to have and express their own opinions and thoughts separate from their husbands.

Now that's funny - a lecture on women's rights from the folks that won't allow women to control their own bodies...

her comments have no connection to her husbands job.

Someone forgot all their outrageous "Hillary" and "Michelle" comments when they were First Ladies...

More MAGA-hypocrisy...

Uh huh. So Justice Thomas is responsible for the comments of his independently thinking wife…. how?

How'd congress access to the text messages 

how were they leaked so that the press could access them is the real question.

Now that's funny - a lecture on women's rights from the folks that won't allow women to control their own bodies...

Even more funny coming from a side that has a justice nominee who is a woman but can’t define what a “woman” is.

Can I provide a definition? No, I can’t," the judge responded before further explaining, "Not in this context, I'm not a biologist."

Uh huh. So Justice Thomas is responsible for the comments of his independently thinking wife…. how?

No one said he's "responsible" for his wife's comments, whatever you mean. But I do, however, think it's problematic for a justice to be ruling in cases, where their spouse/partner may be directly impacted by their ruling. I mean, congress sued the Whitehouse for access to executive records at the Supreme Court, and Clarence Thomas was the only justice who voted against turning the records over to congress. I'm sure it was "just a coincidence" Thomas was the only justice to voted to effectively hide records, which included communications from his wife.

Independent of this one incident, I find it highly troubling there's no way for a justice to recuse themselves, and there isn't a code of conduct in place.

No one said he's "responsible" for his wife's comments, whatever you mean.

oh really? Then what’s this?

“Women's March pushes for impeachment of Justice Thomas over wife's texts”

so the only Black man on the Supreme Court has to lose his job for what his white wife texted?!

so the only Black man on the Supreme Court has to lose his job for what his white wife texted?!

First off, I don't like how you've made everything about race yet again. Race has nothing to do with this.

Why is it okay for a justice to rule in cases where the spouse/partner is a direct party to the case they're hearing? What's next, should the defendants family be allowed to sit on a jury as well?

This is nakedly corrupt, and shows a massive ethical black hole. We don't accept such behavior from lower justices, and we should really consider changing laws/codes to address them. To be very clear, I'm not talking just about Clarence Thomas here.

Why is it okay for a justice to rule in cases where the spouse/partner is a direct party to the case they're hearing?

What case has Clarence Thomas heard was his wife a direct party to?

the new appointee has bias against Trump. she has ruled against him in court and made biased and inflammatory statements about him. Will she be recusing too for any cases he is involved in?

I’m all for this if it’s fair and honest. But it won’t be, liberals always make an excuse about why they don’t have to recuse.

She’s not family, just my sons wife…..so it’s ok!

What case has Clarence Thomas heard was his wife a direct party to?

The case to get the Whitehouse records, which included his wife's texts. If you don't think that's corrupt, ask yourself why Thomas was the lone vote against turning those records over to congress. As conservative as the court has become, literally every single justice sided with congress.

the new appointee has bias against Trump.

To put it another way, should only people who support Trump be allowed on the supreme court? Having a bias (we all do) is one thing, having a personal stake in a ruling is quite another.