I am not sure if it is ironic, hypocritical or both, that an anarchist like you doesn't believe a set of rules (laws?) is strict enough for controlling others' behavior.
So much for being an anarchist...

I have no idea what Schiff has to say on this one. I completely formed my own opinion on this based solely on personal and professional experience, and such.

Re-read what I wrote above in #!. I feel the same way about this no matter what the political predilection of whoever would be appointed. Hell, I'd even give the pick to Trump on this one. Dead serious how wrong what he did was.

We disagree. I believe the mere appearance of impropriety is enough for any judge or justice to recuse.

Weaseling again counselor?
Read #37

Don't you know rules only apply to the proles?

You don't speak for an Anarcho-capitalist like me.

You are clueless what those Cannons say and because I know you didn't read how to interpret and apply them. The reasons "shall" and "must" would be inappropriate in most circumstances is to maintain an independent judiciary. Besides the same action in one set of circumstance could be harmless but disastrous in another.

28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b)He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1)Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2)Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3)Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4)He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5)He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i)Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii)Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii)Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv)Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c)A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d)For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1)“proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2)the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3)“fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4)“financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i)Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii)An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii)The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv)Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e)No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f)Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.

I am curious why the ethical obligaiton of a judge should be more onerous than that of a member of another branch of government? Should members of Congress or Presidents have to resign at the mere appearance of impropriety? I mean, based on that standard, Cavanaugh wouldn't have been confirmed, and I think we all know that was complete theater.

Don't get me wrong, if ACTUAL impropriety is found, my oppinion will be different, but in our "let's create a hoax to smear someone" culture, I lean toward giving Thomas the benefit of the doubt.

Robert, I just reread your response and you suggested recusal, not resignation. Recusal from what in this instance?

Robert, I agree with 47. I believe the standard is innocent until proven guilty. What am I missing in your POV? Does his disregard of disqualification rise to any level of judicial misconduct? Are there any punishments that could be linked to 47?

Recusal from any post election issue/case in which his wife was politically active.

He crossed a bright red-line for the job he has. I would be shocked if his co-Justices didn't advise him otherwise if they knew what was going on. This is not a political issue to me.

As to the other branches of government, they should have to recuse too when under similar circumstances.

Maybe I missed something, but I am not seeing any financial gain here. Did I miss that? Because absent that, we already ask justices to set aside their OWN personal convictions on issues, so where do we draw the line? a Judge's best buddy from college who he plays softball with on the weekends has a Tobacco lobbying job therefore the Justice CANNOT hear cases involving that industry? His kid attends a private christian school, so he cannot hear any cases involving matters of education or religion?

Look, if Justice Thomas himself was actively involved in any efforts outside the court to direct the outcome of the 2020 election, he absolutely should recuse and likely resign. His wife, though, is a stretch IMO.

I agree that he should have done that. I see no legal penalty for him not doing so. I think you have thoroughly addressed the illegality of what he did not do. I see no available legal redress for the situation. Maybe he could be disbarred, but how could that change anything?

as always, you ask good questions and make good points, but I may see a serious degree of difference in your examples and what we have here, if I may...

on the tobacco example, you are correct...but to me the degree of difference that might make it a better comparison is if his best buddy was involved with helping the tobacco company hide or change info showing cancer links.

Recusal would seem logical if not demanded.

as for private religious school cases, I'd agree up to the point of the school(s) being his or his kids' schools involved in a case, or if the school(s) involved were under the same "Corporate" Church control (I didn't know what to call the quasi business structure or if Archdiocese is too broad).

His wife didn't ring doorbells and hand out leaflets. She was in direct and strong contact with one of the POTUS' top guns and more. She may not be on trial but she might be like the buddy helping hide cancer research...?

Does that make any difference to you?

28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
…

(5) He or his spouse...
...

(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

seems clear ^^^

"In January, the Supreme Court rejected former President Donald Trump's bid to block the release of some presidential records to the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot.

Only one of the nine justices dissented: Clarence Thomas.

At the time, Thomas provided no explanation for why he would have approved Trump's request — a standard omission when the top court addresses emergency motions."

Business Insider



the onliest judge?

I have as much authority as the Pope, i just don't have as many people who believe it.

I see your distinctions and understand the nuanced differences you are pointing out. Hypotheticals suck because they never actually match the current circumstance adequatly. I think they all fall within the realm of involvement/culpability/knowledge on the part of the Justice. If someone shows me text messages or emails between Justice Thomas and his wife (or some third party) where Thomas is encouraging, participating, approving or having some level of involvement, then damn the torpedos he needs to go. Being married to someone with differing views, even subversive ones if you like to categorize them that way) doesn't mean that Thomas himself believes or is influenced by those same ideas. As a matter of fact, he may abhor her viewpoint/ideas, but the sex is so good he sticks around anyway.

My point being, I think there are (at least) three levels on the scale:
1. Possibility of impropriety
2. Appearance of impropriety
3. Evidence of impropriety

In my oppinion, we are at level one. If someone shines light on info that advances my perception to level 2 or three, I think this dog may hunt, but barring that, I recoil at the notion of passing judgement based on innuendo, association or supposition. Show me the email/text where Ginny flat out tells Sydney Powel that she "has the full backing of her Big Guy..."

To put it most succinctly, the "mere appearance of impropriety" is in and of itself sufficient for recusal at any level, especially SCOTUS- where it is relatively simple and common for Justices to recuse themselves.

The thing here is that... if he knew about his wife when making any election decisions, given what we know about her now, he should have absolutely recused himself.

Turns out the more you know about the Honorable Clarence Thomas the more honorable he becomes!

Fascinating man!

I guess I'm biased, because I'd have a cigar with him anytime!