Unfortunately for all of us, Judge Thomas can agree with his wife’s political agenda. In February 2021, Thomas disagreed with the court’s rejection of a Pennsylvania Republican dispute in the 2020 election results. from strong evidence of systemic fraud “. Almost a year later, history repeated itself. It was the only disagreement in a January 2022 decision that thwarted Donald Trump’s efforts to wrap up the White House archives by the Jan. 6 special committee. Combining the question marks, Thomas offered no reason for his vote. In this context, Thomas’s ability to comment on matters relating to congressional inquiries and elections is questionable. Going forward, you should get rid of such cases. And if that’s too much to ask, Thomas just has to give up. By design, the law prohibits staff from becoming politicians The U.S. Code of Conduct for Judges advises federal justice not to “allow family, social, political, economic, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment.” In the same vein, the U.S. Code requires exclusion when “a judge’s impartiality can reasonably be challenged”. By design, the law prohibits staff from becoming politicians. Going back in time, the Conservatives were upset when Elena Kagan, a colleague of Thomas’s nominee for Obama, failed to deny herself in the Affordable Care Act. Their argument was clear. Kagan had served as attorney general in the Obama administration and helped map out the defense of the law. At the Justice Department, Kagan emailed the Laurence Tribe, saying of Obamacare: “I heard they have the votes, Larry !! Just amazing. “It was nothing but openly partisan. In response, Herman Kane – the Republican presidential candidate in 2012 – demanded Kagan’s release and referred to the US code. In the National Review, Eric Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University, wrote that Kagan should “retire on the basis of the indisputable fact that her office, the Attorney General’s Office and her Senior Deputy… were undoubtedly involved, principle, in the Obama administration’s litigation strategy. “ This time, however, the right is silent. Ginny Thomas is one of them and then some. She has served as director of CNP Action, the dark money industry of the complex and well-connected National Policy Council. To put it bluntly, at least six current or former members of the CNP helped promote “Stop the Steal” rallies. Brent Bozell IV, son of CNP Golden Circle member Brent Bozell III, was arrested for invading the Capitol. And then there is John Eastman, who was a clerk for her husband. Eastman is at the center of the storm after January 6th. He was a member of the Trump War Room at the Willard Hotel and asked Mike Pence not to ratify the election. Eastman was up to his eyes in mud. Pence’s chief adviser, Greg Jacobs, wrote to him: “Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.” Undaunted, Eastman replied: “The ‘siege’ is due to the fact that YOU and your boss did not do what was necessary to allow it to be broadcast publicly so that the American people could see for themselves what had happened.” These days, Eastman is asserting his right to self-incrimination and fighting for congressional oversight. Thomas and the right may be interested in drawing on the legacy of the late William Rehnquist, the former Supreme Court justice who presided over the trial of Bill Clinton in 1999. In the summer of 1974, the Supreme Court dealt with Richard Nixon’s claim of executive privilege over Watergate tapes, and Renquis faced a dilemma. He had previously served in Nixon’s justice department, and Nixon referred to him as “Ranchberg” in a recorded conversation. As a junior, Rehnquist was a member of the “team”. However, in the face of Nixon’s appeal, Renkist resigned. The court decided the case without his contribution or vote. In the end, the court rejected Nixon’s claim, with 8-0. Most likely, Thomas will not choose the path of the Rehnquist. Resting Ginny, breastfeeding for decades and making a salary is the easiest way to go.
