The New York Times just did a deep dive on the political partnership of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginny, and it's a miasma of unethical behavior. (I suppose that Justice Thomas would call this a, "High tech lynching.")
This has been common knowledge, and runs counter to the code of ethics that Federal Judges, except for Supreme Court Justices, have to adhere to.
This would not be an issue if Thomas chose (and it is a choice, not a requirement for him) to recuse himself, but that would mean his not ruling on voting rights, abortion, church-state issues, etc., which is not going to happen.
There is a belief that judges should avoid even the appearance of impropriety, but the Thomases:
The call to action was titled “Election
Results and Legal Battles: What Now?” Shared in the days after the 2020
presidential election, it urged the members of an influential if
secretive right-wing group to contact legislators in three of the swing
states that tipped the balance for Joe Biden — Arizona, Georgia and
Pennsylvania. The aim was audacious: Keep President Donald J. Trump in
power.
The group, the Council for
National Policy, brings together old-school Republican luminaries,
Christian conservatives, Tea Party activists and MAGA operatives, with
more than 400 members who include leaders of organizations like the
Federalist Society, the National Rifle Association and the Family
Research Council. Founded in 1981 as a counterweight to liberalism, the
group was hailed by President Ronald Reagan as seeking the “return of righteousness, justice and truth” to America.
As Trump insisted, without evidence, that fraud had cheated him of victory, conservative groups rushed to rally behind him. The council stood out, however, not only because of its pedigree but also because one of its newest leaders was Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas and a longtime activist in right-wing circles. She had taken on a prominent role at the council during the Trump years and by 2019 had joined the nine-member board of C.N.P. Action, an arm of the council organized as a 501(c)4 under a provision of the tax code that allows for direct political advocacy. It was C.N.P. Action that circulated the November “action steps” document, the existence of which has not been previously reported. It instructed members to pressure Republican lawmakers into challenging the election results and appointing alternate slates of electors: “Demand that they not abandon their Constitutional responsibilities during a time such as this.”
………
The Thomases have long posed a unique quandary in Washington. Because Supreme Court justices do not want to be perceived as partisan, they tend to avoid political events and entanglements, and their spouses often keep low profiles. But the Thomases have defied such norms. Since the founding of the nation, no spouse of a sitting Supreme Court justice has been as overt a political activist as Ginni Thomas. In addition to her perch at the Council for National Policy, she founded a group called Groundswell with the support of Stephen K. Bannon, the hard-line nationalist and former Trump adviser. It holds a weekly meeting of influential conservatives, many of whom work directly on issues that have come before the court.
Ginni Thomas insists, in her council biography, that she and her husband operate in “separate professional lanes,” but those lanes in fact merge with notable frequency. For the three decades he has sat on the Supreme Court, they have worked in tandem from the bench and the political trenches to take aim at targets like Roe v. Wade and affirmative action. Together they believe that “America is in a vicious battle for its founding principles,” as Ginni Thomas has put it. Her views, once seen as on the fringe, have come to dominate the Republican Party. And with Trump’s three appointments reshaping the Supreme Court, her husband finds himself at the center of a new conservative majority poised to shake the foundations of settled law. In a nation freighted with division and upheaval, the Thomases have found their moment.
………
The reporting uncovered new details on the Thomases’ ascent: how Trump courted Justice Thomas; how Ginni Thomas used that courtship to gain access to the Oval Office, where her insistent policy and personnel suggestions so aggravated aides that one called her a “wrecking ball” while others put together an opposition-research-style report on her that was obtained by The Times; and the extent to which Justice Thomas flouted judicial-ethics guidance by participating in events hosted by conservative organizations with matters before the court. Those organizations showered the couple with accolades and, in at least one case, used their appearances to attract event fees, donations and new members.
It's a very long read, but the conclusion is inescapable, that Clarence Thomas has been routinely violated the most basic canons of judicial ethics for years.
I think that high crimes and misdemeanors includes this.
