Ginni Thomas, MAGA lunatic and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, appeared in a closed-door interview with the House’s January 6th Committee to discuss her alleged involvement in the events of the day. The Washington Post previously reported that Ginni sent nearly 30 text messages to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows urging him to help overturn the 2020 election. The texts sound like the fever dreams of a QAnon devotee, with gems like “Make a plan. Release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down” and “Biden crime family...will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition.”
Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) told reporters that, during her testimony, Thomas doubled down on the false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. We must reiterate that this is the wife of a current Supreme Court Justice—a man who was the sole vote to say that the Trump White House shouldn’t have to release documents to the committee. Perhaps because he knew they’d find his wife’s text messages?
Ginni was with the committee for about four and a half hours and Thompson, who was only able to be there for an hour or so, said investigators didn’t ask Ginni about communications with her husband. The committee was supposed to have a hearing on Wednesday but it was postponed due to Hurricane Ian’s anticipated blasting of the Gulf Coast. Thompson said the goal is to have the hearing before the November 8 midterms and that Ginni’s testimony could possibly be used.
After the hearing, Thomas’ lawyer Mark Paoletta said she answered all of the committee’s questions (eyes emoji) and that, while his client had “significant concerns” about the 2020 election, she only engaged in “minimal and mainstream” actions to highlight fraud. If badgering the president’s Chief of Staff is minimal, we don’t want to know what going whole hog means to her.
While there have been growing calls for Justice Thomas to resign, or at the very least recuse himself from cases regarding the 2020 election or January 6th, no one can make him take either path. All federal judges except for the nine Supreme Court Justices have to follow a written code of ethics. It’s the justices’ call on whether they recuse themselves from certain cases, with no way to appeal a failure to recuse. Neat!
And guess what? The Supreme Court will hear a case called Moore v. Harper in its upcoming term which will decide whether state legislatures have the ultimate say over their elections. Politico described the underlying legal theory this way:
The theory has its roots in the most famous elections-related Supreme Court case this millenium: Bush v. Gore, along with a related ruling. Then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist argued in a concurring opinion that, under Article II of the Constitution, state legislatures had near-unchallengeable authority to decide how presidential electors were appointed, and he wrote that federal courts may need to step in to make sure “that post-election state court actions do not frustrate the legislative desire.”
It sure sounds like Ginni Thomas would like this theory, so maybe Justice Thomas shouldn’t be allowed to rule on it—but there’s currently no backstop to check these unelected judges appointed for life. Alongside taking away people’s rights, this unchecked corruption is just another reason why people think the court sucks and want to do something about it.