Guess Who Shouldn't Have Come to Dinner?
Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni are mired in a conflict-of-interest hell of their own making.
(Note: This essay does not intent to impugn interracial relationship, despite the obviously cheeky title. The author is a Black man married to a White woman, is himself of multiracial ancestry, has White relatives by interracial marriage, and knows and loves other interracial couples)
There are power couples and there are power couples. There are husbands and wives who use work within their spheres of influence to make the world a better place.
And then there’s Clarence and Ginni Thomas.
Associate Supreme Court Justice Thomas has been in the public eye for quite some time. Becoming the second Black Justice on the Supreme Court would have been enough to assure his place in history.
But Thomas has become known outside of his historic high court appointment.
He is also renowned for being America’s least vocal Justice.
He was late Justice Antonin Scalia’s legal toady, going along with whatever far-right, originalist legal ruling Scalia made. He went over ten years without asking a single question during oral arguments.
His voting record put him as far right as you can go. If there is an execrable decision rendered by the Court that limits rights and privileges that free people should take for granted, Thomas has been on the wrong side.
His Uncle Tom foolery is of the most odious kind, always obsequious to Scalia and the Court’s reactionary wing.
If helping to render decisions that adversely affect People of Color and poor people wasn’t enough, Thomas has refused to recuse himself in cases where his wife Ginni has either a direct or enough of an indirect connection that raised legitimate questions about conflict of interest.
Ginni Thomas’ involvement in cases that come before the Supreme Court is varied. She works for conservative organizations that have taken cases to the Court. She also works with groups, sometimes serving on their advisory boards that have written amicus (friend of the court) briefs that are either set to be heard or have already been heard by the Court. Finally, her consulting group has received payment by individuals who have submitted amicus briefs that been filed with the Court.
The problem is that Supreme Court Justices themselves make the decision to recuse themselves. If they refuse to recuse, they are free to rule on cases where they or someone close to them, like a spouse, will benefit.
One of the more egregious instances of the Thomases’ conflict of interest that will have far-reaching consequences.
Ginni Thomas was a signatory on a December, 2021 letter that attacked the January 6 Congressional Committee investigating the Capitol Insurrection and Riot, calling the committee’s work, among other things, “overtly partisan political persecution.”
A month later, the Supreme Court had to rule on whether to grant Donald Trump’s request to block the committee from examining his White House records made during the insurrection. The Court’s vote was 8-1 in favor of releasing the records to the Committee.
Guess who cast the lone dissenting vote?
Justice Thomas.
This particular case was so clear cut that even the other members of the Court’s right-wing voting bloc – Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, were compelled to vote in favor of releasing Trump’s records. One could argue that Thomas’ automatic reactionary bent caused him to be the lone dissenter.
Except for that one nagging fact of his wife being publicly, vocally against the committee’s work.
What is the next vote involving the committee or anything involving January 6 is closer?
Our republic is at enough of a precarious position that even the slightest hint of favoritism in Supreme Court rulings is especially repugnant.
But even if America was on terra firma, what the Thomases are doing would be no less execrable.