Tag Archives: Clarence

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas reportedly has been claiming thousands of dollars annually from a shuttered real estate firm – CNBC

  1. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas reportedly has been claiming thousands of dollars annually from a shuttered real estate firm CNBC
  2. Joyce Vance talks Clarence Thomas ProPublica report and Evan Corcoran recusal MSNBC
  3. Clarence Thomas has for years claimed income from a defunct real estate firm The Washington Post
  4. Clarence Thomas should follow the Abe Fortas precedent and resign gracefully The Hill
  5. Texas GOP billionaire is just Clarence Thomas’ ‘friend’? Do they think we’re stupid? | Opinion Yahoo News
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read original article here

Ginni Thomas told the January 6 committee it was ‘laughable’ for anyone who knew Clarence Thomas to believe she’d be able to ‘influence his jurisprudence’

Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits with his wife and conservative activist Virginia Thomas while he waits to speak at the Heritage Foundation on October 21, 2021.Drew Angerer/Getty Images

  • Ginni Thomas affirmed that she did not speak with Clarence Thomas about 2020 election challenges.

  • On Friday, the conservative activist’s September testimony with the January 6 panel was released.

  • Thomas during her interview was unable to point to any specific instances of voter fraud in 2020.

Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, told the January 6 committee that it was “laughable” for anyone who knew her husband to believe that she could “influence” his judicial philosophy.

The conservative activist — who in September gave a voluntary interview to the House panel probing the January 6, 2021, riot at the United States Capitol — told the members that Clarence Thomas is “stubborn” and “uninterested in politics.”

“I am certain I never spoke with him about any of the legal challenges to the 2020 election, as I was not involved in those challenges in any way,” Ginni Thomas told the panel during her interview, noting that she had an “ironclad” household rule on not discussing pending court cases with Clarence Thomas. “Let me also add, it’s laughable for anyone who knows my husband to think I could influence his jurisprudence. The man is independent and stubborn, with strong character traits of independence and integrity.”

Ginni Thomas, who in the immediate aftermath of the 2020 presidential election exchanged texts with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows where she pushed him to challenge now-President Joe Biden’s victory over then-President Donald Trump, said during her January 6 interview that she regretted sending the messages to the high-ranking Trump administration official.

“I regret all of these texts,” she told the committee during her closed-door testimony, which was released to the public on Friday. “It was an emotional time, and people were scared that there had been enough fraud happening that they weren’t going to get to the bottom of it. So that’s how I would look at that one.”

Ginni Thomas during her January 6 committee interview admitted that while she had concerns about voter fraud in the 2020 election, she couldn’t pinpoint specific cases of such malfeasance.

“I can’t say that I was familiar at the time with any specific evidence,” she told the members. “I was just hearing it from news reports and friends on the ground, grassroots activists who were inside of various polling places that found things suspicious.”

Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the Republican vice chair of the January 6 panel, then asked Ginni Thomas to confirm her lack of verifiable information about voting irregularities in 2020.

“Right. I know. I wasn’t very deep; I admit it,” she told Cheney.

“I was hearing it, Congresswoman, from a lot of people I trust. So trusted people were telling me there were problems, and I just thought there should be people at the state level investigating those before it was too late,” she added.

After the 2020 election, Thomas also emailed a range of GOP legislators in Arizona and Wisconsin — two key swing states where Biden narrowly outpaced Trump — where she also pushed them to help overturn Biden’s victory.

Ginni Thomas, well-known in GOP circles for decades, has only in the past few years become a larger figure in the public sphere, driven by her ties to prominent conservatives as her husband has taken a prominent role as a leader of the now-dominant conservative bloc on the Supreme Court.

With a 6-3 conservative majority on the high court, Justice Thomas’ judicial philosophy has taken on incredible significance as the conservative bloc is set to reshape some of the most pertinent issues in American society for the foreseeable future.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Read original article here

Clarence Thomas was ‘key’ to a plan to delay certification of 2020 election, Trump lawyers said in emails



CNN
 — 

A lawyer for former President Donald Trump described Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as “key” to Trump’s plan to delay Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s victory through litigation after the 2020 election, according to emails recently turned over to the House select committee investigating January 6.

“We want to frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue” a temporary order putting Georgia’s results in doubt, Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro wrote in a December 31, 2020, email, adding that a favorable order from Thomas was their “only chance” to hold up Congress from counting electoral votes for Biden from Georgia.

John Eastman, another attorney for Trump, responded to that email saying he agreed with the plan. In the email exchanges with several other lawyers working on Trump’s legal team, they were discussing filing a lawsuit that they hoped would result in an order that “TENTATIVELY” held that Biden electoral votes from Georgia were not valid because of election fraud.

Having a case pending in front of the Supreme Court, Chesebro wrote, would be enough to prevent the Senate from counting Biden’s electors. Thomas would end up being “the key here,” Chesebro wrote, noting that Thomas is the justice assigned to dealing with emergency matters coming from the southeastern part of the country.

The email referencing Thomas was first reported by Politico. It is part of a tranche of emails the House has obtained from Eastman, under an order from a court, that are still subject of litigation before an appeals court. The emails were available through a link in a court filing submitted by the House committee early Wednesday.

US District Judge David O. Carter previously determined that the emails show evidence of potential criminal activity in Trump’s efforts to reverse his electoral loss, finding the Trump team was using litigation not to obtain court relief but to meddle with the congressional proceedings. Carter, in deciding last month that the emails should be released to the House committee, said that some of them showed evidence of obstruction of an official proceeding.

Chesebro wrote in one of the newly-available emails that that if the legal team could just get a case pending before the Supreme Court by January 5, “ideally with something positive  written by a judge or a justice, hopefully Thomas,” that it was their “best shot at holding up the count of a state in Congress.”

In a separate email Chesebro acknowledged their plans were a long shot, putting the odds of success at the Supreme Court before the January 6 congressional certification at “1%.”

But, he wrote, “a lot can happen in the 13 days left,” and having the election results of multiple states under review in the courts and in state legislatures could bolster the push to extend Congress’ debate over certifying the results.

The “public could also come away” believing the election, particularly in Wisconsin, was likely “rigged,” Chesebro wrote.

In an email two days later, Chesebro said that having Georgia “in play” on a Supreme Court filing could be “critical.” Chesebro speculated that if there was a Georgia case pending before the Supreme Court,  Vice President Mike Pence could refuse to open proceedings any of the envelopes documenting the state’s electoral votes during the January 6 proceedings.

Such a move by Pence would force the court to act on the petitions, Chesebro said. “Trump and Pence have procedural options available to them starting on January 6 that might create additional delay, and also might put pressure on the Court to act,” Chesebro wrote.

House General Counsel Doug Letter on Wednesday afternoon told the appeals court – where Eastman is still asking for help to claw back the eight emails – the inclusion of a publicly available link to the files was inadvertent.

According to the newly available emails, Trump’s lawyers were so concerned about him filing in court a signed statement asserting false election fraud claims that they worried he might be prosecuted for a crime.

Eastman raised the issue in an email on December 31, 2020, as Trump’s lawyers were planning to file in federal court to challenge the election result. Trump had made notarized verifications in the case that the facts presented were true to the best of his knowledge, but both he and his attorneys knew the data they were using in the case was misleading, according to another email.

In a recent decision, Carter said he believed the exchanges were possible evidence of a fraudulent scheme after the 2020 election. Though he described this set of emails in an order last month, the full text of the exchanges is now available.

“Although the President signed a verification for that back on Dec. 1, he has since been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been inaccurate,” Eastman wrote to two other lawyers on December 31, 2020. “For him to sign a new verification with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate. And I have no doubt that an aggressive DA or US Atty someplace would go after both the President and his lawyers once all the dust settles on this.”

Eastman also wrote that a White House adviser and lawyer, Eric Herschmann, had “concern about the President signing a verification when specific numbers were included” regarding votes cast. He was specifically concerned about numbers that implied that felons, dead people and people who had moved had voted improperly, another Eastman email showed.

At the time that the lawyers were in discussions, Trump was in flight, returning to the White House, and was set to consult with Herschmann about signing the verification, another December 31 email from Eastman said.

“I’m going to work with Eric in advance to get it all cleared,” Eastman wrote.

He and other private attorneys then discussed changing the verification for Trump to sign. But there was no notary around the White House to witness Trump’s signing until after the new year, the emails show. “Presidential trip to a UPS store?” another lawyer, Christopher Gardner wrote.

Elections lawyers Cleta Mitchell and Alex Kaufman then suggested using a notary over zoom – instead of having Trump sign the document with the language “under penalty of perjury,” according to the emails.

This story has been updated with additional details.

Read original article here

Trump lawyers saw Clarence Thomas as key to stop Biden electoral count, emails show

Comment

Lawyers for President Donald Trump saw Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as the key to overturning the results of the 2020 election, according to a set of emails provided to congressional investigators.

Eight emails, ordered released by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter of California, include correspondence between Trump lawyers Kenneth Chesebro, John Eastman and others discussing various legal strategies to convince Republican members of Congress to object to the official certification of electoral votes in a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.

In an email from Chesebro to Eastman and several others sent on Dec. 31, 2020, Chesebro argued that Thomas would “end up being key” to asking the high court to overturn then-President-elect Joe Biden’s win in contested states, and that they should “frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion saying Georgia is in legitimate doubt.”

Thomas is the justice who oversees emergency petitions from the circuit court that includes Georgia.

“Realistically, our only chance to get a favorable judicial opinion by Jan. 6, which might hold up the Georgia count in Congress, is from Thomas — do you agree, Prof. Eastman?”

In an email sent hours later, Chesebro reiterated that he viewed “the best shot at holding up the count of a state in Congress” would be to get a case “pending before the Supreme Court by Jan. 5, ideally with something positive written by a judge or justice, hopefully Thomas.”

Days earlier, Chesebro on Christmas Eve morning sent an email to Eastman, Justin Clark, Bruce Marks, and others and put the odds of the court taking up the question and issuing a decision at no more than 5 percent — and of it doing so in Trump’s favor by Jan. 6 at “only 1 percent.”

But Chesebro said the “relevant analysis … is political” and “feeding the impression that the courts lack the courage to fairly and timely consider these complaints, and justifying a political argument on Jan. 6.”

Politico first reported on the contents of the new emails.

Eastman has argued that the set of disputed emails were protected by attorney-client privilege — a bedrock principle of U.S. legal practice that says a lawyer must keep confidential what they are told by their clients, and work product related to their representation. Carter cited a “crime-fraud exception” — including instances in which communications were part of a crime — ruling that “the emails are sufficiently related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States.”

Eastman clerked for Thomas and has remained in touch with his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, according to email correspondence obtained by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. At least one of the emails showed Ginni Thomas inviting Eastman to speak on Dec. 8, 2020, to a group of conservative activists to provide an update about election litigation.

Ginni Thomas lobbied state legislators in Arizona and Wisconsin via email, urging them to help overturn Biden’s victory, The Washington Post has previously reported. Neither Ginni nor Clarence Thomas appear to be included on any of the newly released email correspondence and there is no indication in the emails that any of the lawyers directly appealed to Clarence Thomas regarding election litigation.

Read original article here

Chelsea Handler Ends Kimmel Run by Going Off on Joe Rogan and Clarence Thomas

Chelsea Handler kicked off her week of shows guest-hosting for Jimmy Kimmel by going after “pro-life” Republicans and joking that her own three abortions are all the proof Americans need that Roe v. Wade should never have been overturned.

“I have thoroughly enjoyed my time guest-hosting,” the comedian said on Thursday night. “But just like women’s rights, all good things must come to an end.” If “nothing else,” she took solace in the fact that she “got one viewer to change his stance,” highlighting a tweet that began, “Knowing she isn’t raising kids is almost justification for abortion.”

In her final monologue of the week, Handler delivered a history lesson of sorts about the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote in 1919. Just over a hundred years later, she proposed a 28th Amendment to “end male suffrage.”

But if that’s not a realistic option, she issued a challenge to the men of America: “Guys, if you don’t want us going after your rights, then you better get up off your hairy asses and join the fight to defend ours.”

Instead of “mansplaining” to women about how to win back their rights, she said, “Shut up, OK? How about you do the work for once and don’t open your mouth unless you’re chanting, ‘Her body, her choice.’” She implored men to, “Talk to your sons. Tell them why this is so important before they get radicalized by Joe Rogan.”

“You have the power to make a difference,” Handler added. “If every man donated just one dollar to Planned Parenthood after they masturbated, this organization would have enough resources to help every woman on planet Earth.”

“And all of you have got to take some goddamn responsibility,” she said. “Abortion is a men’s issue. Because if there were no men, there would be no abortions. In fact, if there were no men, we’d all be going down on each other in space right now.”

Handler ended her rant with “one small piece of encouraging news,” the swearing-in of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “For the first time ever, there are now four women on the Supreme Court,” she said to cheers. “And five if you include that bitch Clarence Thomas.”

For more, listen to Chelsea Handler on The Last Laugh podcast.

Read original article here

Kamala Harris: Clarence Thomas said ‘quiet part out loud’ in abortion ruling

Placeholder while article actions load

Vice President Harris said Monday that she “never believed” the Senate testimony of Supreme Court Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Neil M. Gorsuch, in which they stressed the importance of legal precedent in cases like Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion.

“I never believed them. I didn’t believe them. That’s why I voted against them,” Harris told CNN in an interview.

Days after the high court overturned the 1973 ruling, clearing the way for states to drastically reduce access to abortion or ban it outright, Harris would not say whether she thought the justices deliberately misled the public and Congress during their confirmation processes.

“Listen, it was clear to me when I was sitting in that chair as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that they were … very likely to do what they just did. That was my perspective. That was my opinion,” she added. “And that’s why I voted like I did.”

Harris also addressed Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion, in which he called on the Supreme Court to reexamine cases on LGBTQ rights and contraception. “I definitely believe this is not over. I do. I think he just said the quiet part out loud,” Harris said of Thomas.

What conservative justices said about Roe at their confirmation hearings

Kavanaugh, nominated by President Donald Trump and confirmed in 2018 by a 50-to-48 Senate vote, testified that Roe was an “important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times.”

However, during oral arguments in the case that led to Roe’s undoing, he indicated he would be open to overturning “settled law,” citing a list of “seriously wrong” Supreme Court decisions that were later reversed.

In Gorsuch’s 2017 confirmation hearing, he testified that Roe was “a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court” and said he “would have walked out the door” if Trump had asked him to overturn it because “that’s not what judges do.”

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) have said the two justices misrepresented their views on Roe in their testimonies and in private assurances during their nomination processes. Collins said she felt misled after she voted to confirm the justices, two of three Trump nominees who gave the court a 6-to-3 conservative majority.

Susan Collins says testimony by Gorsuch, Kavanaugh ‘inconsistent’ with ruling

Harris said Friday’s decision to overturn Roe left her “shocked” after she learned about it while flying to Illinois for an event on maternal health.

“I couldn’t believe it, because they actually did it,” she said. “The court actually took a constitutional right that has been recognized for half a century and took it from the women of America — that’s shocking when you think about it.”

As the first female vice president, Harris said the news affected her as a woman, a mother, an aunt and a godmother, and she urged all Americans to reflect on the court’s decision. “When we think about it, everyone has something at risk on this,” she added.

LGBTQ community braces for rollback of rights after abortion ruling

Although Harris did not mention Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the interview, she was present at Barrett’s confirmation hearings in 2020.

There, Barrett was also asked about Roe and testified that she was committed to obeying “all the rules of stare decisis,” the principle of respecting legal precedent when making decisions. “I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else,” she added.

Collins told reporters at the time of their confirmation hearings that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh had assured her that Roe was “settled as precedent.”

Meanwhile, Manchin said in a statement: “I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans.”

Lawmakers like Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and more spoke on June 26 about the overturning of Roe. (Video: Allie Caren/The Washington Post)

As for Thomas, he wrote, that “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell.”

The 2015 Obergefell decision guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marriage, and the 2003 Lawrence decision overturned a Texas law that criminalized sex between gay people. The 1965 Griswold decision barred states from denying contraceptives to married couples.

“We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas said.

Harris said the court’s decisions had been driven by politics. “I think that is why we all must really understand the significance of what just happened. This is profound.”

President Biden has called the court’s ruling a “tragic error” and implored voters to turn out in November to elect members of Congress willing to write abortion protections into law.

Several liberal lawmakers such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have floated the possibility that Biden could expand access to abortion on federal lands in states that ban it.

But Harris did not entertain the idea long during her conversation with CNN’s Dana Bash: “It’s not [something] right now that we are discussing.”

Instead, she reiterated the importance of electing Democrats during the midterms, listing the Senate races in Georgia, North Carolina and Colorado as opportunities for her party to pick up seats.

“We need to change the balance and have pro-choice legislators who have the power to make decisions about whether this constitutional right will be in law,” she said.

Harris, who as vice president presides over the Senate, did not mention the possibility of eliminating the filibuster to codify abortion rights.

She said the administration will protect women’s ability to travel to other states for abortions, saying that the issue is likely to go to the courts and that the administration would also “do everything” to ensure that women retain access to pills for medication abortions.

Amy B Wang contributed to this report.



Read original article here

Prince Charles Rwanda: Clarence House doesn’t deny comment on report that Prince of Wales finds UK’s plan to send migrants to Rwanda ‘appalling’

“He said he was more than disappointed at the policy,” The Times reported, quoting an anonymous source. “He said he thinks the government’s whole approach is appalling.”

CNN has not independently verified The Times report.

Clarence House told CNN in a statement that the Prince of Wales remains politically neutral.

“We would not comment on supposed anonymous private conversations with The Prince of Wales, except to restate that he remains politically neutral. Matters of policy are decisions for Government,” Clarence House said.

The Times reported the Prince of Wales feared the controversial policy would loom over the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit taking place later this month in Kigali, Rwanda, where he is expected to represent Queen Elizabeth II.

In response to The Times report, a UK government spokesperson told CNN in a statement: “Our world-leading Partnership with Rwanda will see those making dangerous, unnecessary and illegal journeys to the UK relocated there to have their claims considered and rebuild their lives. There is no one single solution to the global migration crisis, but doing nothing is not an option and this partnership will help break the business model of criminal gangs and prevent loss of life.”

“Rwanda is a fundamentally safe and secure country with a track record of supporting asylum seekers and we are confident the agreement is fully compliant with all national and international law,” the statement adds.

The UK government announced in April that it had agreed a deal to send asylum-seekers to the East African country, in a move that it insisted was aimed at disrupting people-smuggling networks and deterring migrants from making the dangerous Channel crossing to England from Europe.

On Friday, the UK’s plan to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda as early as next week was green-lit, after the High Court in London denied an injunction brought by campaigners to block the first flight due to leave on Tuesday.

The Home Office’s scheme is under judicial review at the Royal Courts, where a ruling on its legality is expected in late July.

Human Rights groups have said they will appeal the decision. Care4Calais, one of the human rights groups that brought the initial challenge to block the deportations, said they have been given permission to appeal the ruling on Monday.

Read original article here

Clarence Thomas says Supreme Court leak has eroded trust in institution

Placeholder while article actions load

The leak of a draft opinion regarding abortion has turned the Supreme Court into a place “where you look over your shoulder,” Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday night, and it may have irreparably sundered trust at the institution.

“What happened at the court was tremendously bad,” Thomas said in a conversation with a former law clerk at a conference of conservative and libertarian thinkers in Dallas. “I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them. And then I wonder when they’re gone or destabilized, what we’re going to have as a country.”

It was second time in a week that Thomas has decried declining respect for “institutions” — he made similar remarks at a conference of judges and lawyers last week.

Thomas says respect for institutions is eroding

Thomas, 73, said the leak has exposed the “fragile” nature of the court.

“The institution that I’m a part of — if someone said that one line of one opinion would be leaked by anyone, you would say, ‘Oh, that’s impossible. No one would ever do that,’” Thomas said. “There’s such a belief in the rule of law, belief in the court, belief in what we’re doing, that that was verboten.”

He continued: “And look where we are, where now that trust or that belief is gone forever. And when you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity, that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it.”

He made the remarks Friday night at a conference sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute and the Hoover Institution. In front of an approving crowd, he was pointed and accusatory; he seemed to blame law clerks who work at the court for the leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. that would overturn Roe v. Wade, and he appeared distrustful of some of his colleagues.

“Anybody who would, for example, have an attitude to leak documents, that general attitude is your future on the bench,” Thomas said. “And you need to be concerned about that. And we never had that before. We actually trusted — we might have been a dysfunctional family, but we were a family.”

Just as Alito had done in a speech the night before at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University in Virginia, Thomas skipped past the usual bonhomie that justices express about their colleagues — that they disagree vigorously but respect and admire each other.

Asked about that by a questioner, who wondered how a friendly respect for ideological differences could be fostered in Congress and other institutions, Thomas replied:

“Well, I’m just worried about keeping it at the court now.”

As he had the week before, he praised a previous court — one headed by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and with Justice Stephen G. Breyer as its junior member — as a “fabulous court.” It ended with the appointment of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. after Rehnquist’s death in 2005, and now Thomas and Breyer, who retires at the end of the term, remain.

“This is not the court of that era,” Thomas said. “I sat with Ruth Ginsburg for almost 30 years, and she was actually an easy colleague for me. You knew where she was, and she was a nice person to deal with. Sandra Day O’Connor you can say the same thing; David Souter, I can go on down the list.”

“The court that was together 11 years was a fabulous court. It was one you looked forward to being a part of.”

Thomas was in conversation with a former law clerk, John Yoo, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Yoo did not ask the justice about recent controversies involving Thomas’s wife Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, who was a staunch defender of President Donald Trump and whose texts with Trump’s chief of staff regarding legal schemes to challenge Trump’s 2020 election loss have come to light.

Before those numerous texts were published by The Washington Post and CBS News, Thomas was the only member of the court to side with Trump’s request to withhold White House documents from the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. Thomas did not explain his vote in the court’s short order denying Trump’s emergency request, and Democrats in Congress have cited his participation as evidence of a need for a stringent ethics and recusal code at the Supreme Court.

Thomas briefly recounted battles with the left, which he said tried to keep him off the court “because of abortion.” While saying at his confirmation hearing that he had never considered the correctness of Roe, Thomas joined an opinion just months later saying the precedent should be overturned.

Thomas said conservatives have never employed the harsh tactics of the left.

“You would never visit Supreme Court justices’ houses when things didn’t go our way,” Thomas said. “We didn’t throw temper tantrums. I think it is incumbent on us to always act appropriately and not repay tit for tat.”

Asked if conservatives were living up to the “mantra” of civility in politics, he said: “They’ve never trashed a Supreme Court nominee. The most they can point to is Garland did not get a hearing, but he was not trashed.”

Thomas was referring to Attorney General Merrick Garland, who as a judge was President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia after his death in 2016. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), then the Senate majority leader, refused to schedule a confirmation hearing.

“It was a rule that Joe Biden introduced, by the way, which is you get no hearing in the last year of an administration,” Thomas said. He did not mention that Republicans pushed through Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to replace Ginsburg just weeks before Election Day in 2020.

Thomas did not speak directly about any of the issues before the court, but he was asked about stare decisis, the doctrine that generally says past decisions of the court should be respected and rarely overturned. It is addressed at length in Alito’s draft opinion that would overturn Roe.

On the current court, Thomas is the least loyal to the doctrine. “When someone uses stare decisis, that means they’re out of arguments,” he said. “They’re just waving the white flag.”

At another point in the speech, he lamented those who lack “courage.” He continued: “Like they know what is right, and they’re scared to death of doing it. And then they come up with all these excuses for not doing it.” It was not clear whether he was referring to some of his conservative colleagues, whom he has criticized in past opinions for not moving quickly enough to right what he has seen as wrongs in the court’s past decisions.

Under Yoo’s questioning, Thomas offered up a familiar list of grievances: liberal Yale Law School, where he received his degree; intolerance of conservative views on college campuses; and “elites.”

In a room filled with Black conservatives, Thomas talked about being free to make his own choices, which put him at odds with the political views of other African Americans.

“People assume that I’ve had difficulties when I’ve been around members of my race,” Thomas told Yoo. “It’s just the opposite. The only people with whom I’ve had difficulties are white, liberal elites who consider themselves the anointed and us the benighted. . . . I have never had issues with members of my race.”

Read original article here

Clarence Thomas says Supreme Court after leaked draft opinion is ‘not the court’ of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s era

“The institution that I’m a part of, if someone said that one line of one opinion would be leaked by anyone, you’d say, ‘Oh, that’s impossible. No one would ever do that.’ There is such a belief in the rule of law, a belief in the court, a belief in what we were doing that that was verboten,” Thomas said. “It was beyond anyone’s understanding, or at least anyone’s imagination, that someone would do that.”

The comments from the 73-year-old justice were delivered at an “Old Parkland Conference” event sponsored by the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute in Dallas. The remarks echoed those he had made earlier this month in Atlanta, when he said government institutions shouldn’t be “bullied” into delivering what some see as the preferred outcome.

Thomas was interviewed by former law clerk John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, during a dinner event at the three-day conference focused on challenges facing Black Americans.

Thomas, who was appointed in 1991 and sat on the bench with 1993 appointee Ginsburg for nearly 30 years, said, “We actually trusted each other. We may have been a dysfunctional family, but we were a family, and we loved it. I mean, you trusted each other, you laughed together, you went to lunch together every day, and I can only hope you can keep it.”

The leak, he said, had eroded trust, and “you begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity, that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it.”

The final opinion in the case — which stands as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade’s holding of a federal constitutional right to an abortion — has not been released, and votes and language can still change before then. The opinion is not expected to be issued until late June.

“I do think what happened at the court is tremendously bad,” Thomas said. “I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them, and then I wonder when they’re gone or they are destabilized, what we’ll have as a country — and I don’t think that the prospects are good if we continue to lose them.”

Read original article here

Clarence Thomas says abortion leak has changed Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Clarence Thomas says the Supreme Court has been changed by the shocking leak of a draft opinion earlier this month. The opinion suggests the court is poised to overturn the right to an abortion recognized nearly 50 years ago in Roe v. Wade.

The conservative Thomas, who joined the court in 1991 and has long called for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, described the leak as an unthinkable breach of trust.

“When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it,” he said while speaking at a conference Friday evening in Dallas.

The court has said the draft does not represent the final position of any of the court’s members, and Chief Justice John Roberts has ordered an investigation into the leak.

Thomas, a nominee of President George H.W. Bush, said it was beyond “anyone’s imagination” before the May 2 leak of the opinion to Politico that even a line of a draft opinion would be released in advance, much less an entire draft that runs nearly 100 pages. Politico has also reported that in addition to Thomas, conservative justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett had voted with the draft opinion’s author, Samuel Alito, to overrule Roe v. Wade and a 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that affirmed Roe’s finding of a constitutional right to abortion.

Thomas said that previously, “if someone said that one line of one opinion” would be leaked, the response would have been: “Oh, that’s impossible. No one would ever do that.”

“Now that trust or that belief is gone forever,” Thomas said at the Old Parkland Conference, which describes itself as a conference “to discuss alternative proven approaches to tackling the challenges facing Black Americans today.”

Thomas also said at one point: “I do think that what happened at the court is tremendously bad…I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them.”

Thomas also touched in passing on the protests by liberals at conservative justices’ homes in Maryland and Virginia that followed the draft opinion’s release. Thomas argued that conservatives have never acted that way.

“You would never visit Supreme Court justices’ houses when things didn’t go our way. We didn’t throw temper tantrums. I think it is … incumbent on us to always act appropriately and not to repay tit for tat,” he said.

Protests at the Supreme Court and around the nation are also expected Saturday.

Thomas was speaking before an audience as part of a conversation with John Yoo, who is now a Berkeley Law professor but worked for Thomas for a year in the early 1990s as a law clerk.

Each justice generally has four law clerks every year and the current group of law clerks has been a focus of speculation as a possible source of the draft opinion’s leak. They are one of a few groups along with the justices and some administrative staff that has access to draft opinions.

Thomas also answered a few questions from the audience, including one from a man who asked about the friendships between liberal and conservative justices on the court, such as a well-known friendship between the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. “How can we foster that same type of relationship within Congress and within the general population?” the man asked.

“Well, I’m just worried about keeping it at the court now,” Thomas responded. He went on to speak in glowing terms about former colleagues. “This is not the court of that era,” he said.

Despite his comments, Thomas seemed in good spirits — laughing heartily at times. Yoo, who is known for writing the so-called “torture memos” that the George W. Bush administration used to justify using “enhanced interrogation” techniques after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, said at one point that he had taken pictures of notes Thomas had taken during the conference.

“You’re going to leak them?” Thomas asked, laughing.

Yoo responded: “Well, I know where to go…Politico will publish anything I give them now.”

Read original article here

The Ultimate News Site