Proud to be a Democrat!
The Honorable Clarence Thomas Associate Justice
Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street NE
Washington, DC 20543 Dear Justice Thomas,December 15, 2023
This week, Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to decide a key question in the case of United States of America v. Donald J. Trump, a case in which Mr. Trump is charged with conspiring to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, conspiring to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote, and actually obstructing the certification of the electoral vote.1 In this week’s filing, Mr. Smith asked the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to decide “Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.”2 The Supreme Court has directed Mr. Trump to file a response to the request for certiorari.3 For the reasons explained below, we strongly implore you to exercise your discretion and recuse yourself from this and any other decisions in the case of United States v. Trump.
Faith in the Supreme Court has plummeted, and fewer than half of all Americans trust the Supreme Court.4 Public perception is growing that the Supreme Court flouts the rules, in large part due to your recently reported ties to and luxury travel with billionaire Republican donors that you hid for decades.5 The public pressure has grown so intense, that last month the Supreme Court announced a formal—though unenforceable—Code of Conduct.6 You signed the Code, publicly proclaiming that you subscribe to it. In Cannon 3B, the Code states that “A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.”7 The Code details such instances, including those in which “The Justice or Justice’s spouse…is known by the Justice:…(iii) to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or (iv) likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.”8
We know through public reporting and through Congressional investigations that your wife, Virginia (“Ginni”) Thomas was intimately involved in Mr. Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and to obstruct its certification – the very conspiracies at issue in this case. Your wife not only attended the pro-Trump rally that preceded the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol, she was one of nine board members for a conservative political group that helped lead the “Stop the Steal” movement.9 She traded at least 29 text messages with Mr. Trump’s Chief of Staff (Mark Meadows) in which she urged him to “pursue unrelenting efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election,” starting immediately after Election Day 2020 and ending only days after the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol.10 In these text messages, your wife pleaded with Mr. Meadows to continue the fight to overturn the election results, calling the election a “heist” and saying in one message: “Sounds like Sidney and her team are getting inundated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down.”11 Your wife also pressed Arizona and Wisconsin lawmakers to overturn President Biden’s 2020 victory, urging them to set aside President Biden’s popular-vote victory and to choose their own presidential electors, despite state law to the contrary.12 These details about your wife’s activities raise serious questions about your ability to be or even to appear impartial in any cases before the Supreme Court involving the 2020 election and the January 6th insurrection.
If you want to show the American people that the Supreme Court’s recent Code of Conduct is worth more than the paper it is written on, you must do the honorable thing and recuse yourself from any decisions in the case of United States v. Trump.
Sincerely,
Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr. Member of Congress
Jamie Raskin, Member of Congress
Sheila Jackson Lee, Member of Congress
Gerald E. Connolly, Member of Congress
Jasmine Crockett Member of Congress
Madeleine Dean, Member of Congress
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Member of Congress
Dan Goldman, Member of Congress
Open thread.
Alison Rose
Very glad to see them do this, even if Thomas couldn’t be moved to ever do the right thing even if the Lord himself came down to Earth and asked. But it’s important that the Dems make it clear just how wrong, in every sense of the word, Thomas is.
laura
Damn Spicy Letter. I’d like to see more of this, a whole lot more.
Matthew
Why are there any Democrats who haven’t signed on to this?
Roberto el oso
“Faith in the Supreme Court has plummeted, and fewer than half of all Americans trust the Supreme Court.”
Short and sweet. Excellent.
Geminid
@Matthew: Why are there 204 Democrats who haven’t signed this letter? Probably because Reps. Raskin and Connolly did not ask them to. There was no need.
WaterGirl
@Matthew: @Geminid:
I wondered, too, about the signatures. Wondering if all of these folks happen to be friends, who got invited to sign if they wanted, etc.
I have only questions about the signers, no answers.
But I do know that I LOVE the letter, that they pulled no punches as they called out the Supreme Court, and they put Thomas on notice that people will be watching what he does, and that the Dems won’t be shy about calling attention to what he does.
Either their ethics “rules” have meaning, or they don’t.
brantl
I thought it said Truth to Putzes. And thought, how fitting. And then I thought, “they should have copied the other 5 of the SCrOTUS.
Geminid
@WaterGirl: I think the signers are all on the Oversight Committee.
Rand Careaga
Assumes facts not in evidence.
HumboldtBlue
Is there a reason it’s spaced like that? It’s hard to read.
Sure Lurkalot
Reposting from downstairs:
OT, this year’s best blog posts of the year have some familiar names:
Michael Bersin, Paul Wartenberg, Mustang Bobby, whose comments here at BJ I bet many of us have read, as well as Driftglass and Blue Gal, who have produced the Professional Left Podcast for many years (and their new “No Fair Remembering Stuff” is excellent too).
Worth reading their and others’ award winning posts!
https://vagabondscholar.blogspot.com/2023/12/jon-swift-roundup-2023.html
WaterGirl
@Geminid: Judicial Oversight, I presume?
Ohio Mom
@Geminid: That’s what I was thinking, they must all be on a pertinent committee. In which case, the fact that none of their Republican co-committee members signed on says something, although not anything we don’t already know.
WaterGirl
@Rand Careaga:
I don’t think they are assuming anything! :-)scratch that.
I think the Dems who wrote this letter are assuming something – that the ethics code is NOT worth more than the paper is written on. :-)
Geminid
@WaterGirl: I think it’s the Government Oversight Committee, and it has a more general focus. The late Elijah Cummings used to be Chairman.
Democrats did an interesting thing with this committee. Rep. Connolly had the most seniority, and would normally hold the position of Ranking Member for the Minority. Jaime Raskin got the job though, maybe because he is better known and inspires a lot of confidence; a “star” so to speak. I don’t think Connolly kicked about it either.
WaterGirl
@Geminid: Interesting!
edit: where is everyone today?
NotMax
Can haz a Tom Smothers memorial thread?
Another Scott
@Geminid: @WaterGirl:
Gerry doesn’t pull his punches.
It’s Comer’s committee (the same one trying to go after Hunter and POTUS) –
House Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Here are the 20 Democrats on it:
Agreed there was no need for all 20 of them to sign it. They made their point, and Thomas is going to thumb his nose at any oversight as long as he’s able.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
kindness
I am shocked Clarence hasn’t recused himself. Then again, he’s told all of us he know’s who butters his bread if you know what I mean and I think you do.
raven
@WaterGirl: watching, gasp, football.
Geminid
@raven: The Hokies? I’ve got them on the radio.
David ⛄ 🎅The Establishment🎄 🦌 🕎 Koch
@NotMax: about 30 years ago I read a book on the history of the original cast of SNL. The first chapter started with the Smothers Brothers show and how it broke all the rules which made it possible for a show like SNL to get on the air. Turns out Tommy was the driving force of the SB show. On air, he played the dimwit for laughs but behind the scenes he was the producer, the head writer, etc. He himself hired Steve Martin, Carl Gottlieb, Rob Reiner and Super Dave Osborne (Bob Einstein) as co writers.
David ⛄ 🎅The Establishment🎄 🦌 🕎 Koch
@raven:
WaterGirl
@Another Scott: I don’t see Madeleine Dean on your list?
WaterGirl
@raven: Is there a big game today?
Another Scott
@WaterGirl: it’s apparently not just Oversight members who signed it.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
eclare
@David ⛄ 🎅The Establishment🎄 🦌 🕎 Koch:
Wow, he nurtured a lot of talent, which is so important.
WaterGirl
@NotMax: Tommy Smothers thread is up.
rikyrah
clap clap clap clap
rikyrah
He has no shame, and won’t recuse, but, this needed to be written.
Quantum man
He will recuse only when Ginny flies to the moon propelled only by natural gas.
WaterGirl
@Quantum man: May that be soon!
beckya57
Good letter, certainly doesn’t hurt to call him out, but he won’t recuse. This SCOTUS is utterly unconcerned with their public image, and there’s no other check on their power. (PS they’re not going to uphold CO either, for similar reasons.)
WaterGirl
@beckya57: Oh, I think the Supreme Court justices care about their public image.
But they remind me of my cocker spaniel who was always really sorry when I was yelling at her for getting into the garbage – she was just sorry that I was yelling, not sorry that she had done it.
That’s pretty much where these corrupt Supreme Court justices are.
They are sorry that all of this is coming out and that people are calling them corrupt. But they are not sorry that they ARE corrupt.
Urza
Its not signed by Leonard Leo so Thomas et al don’t consider it a valid legal argument.
Other MJS
Found this article at Forbes with a link to the letter.
WaterGirl
@Other MJS: Forbes is paywalled. If you have any information to share about what’s in the article, that would be much appreciated.
Another Scott
@WaterGirl: I can see the Forbes article opening it in a Private/Incognito window. (One gets 4 free articles.)
It’s from Alison Durkee. She’s got a big “Forbes UNION” graphic on her Twitter thing, so that’s good.
HTH a little.
Cheers,
Scott.