...in the case that involved his wife?

Assuming he knew that she was communicating with the Chief of Staff of the Executive.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a272_9p6b.pdf

The Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution require judges to recuse themselves from cases in two situations:

Where the judge has a financial interest in the case's outcome.
Where there is otherwise a strong possibility that the judge's decision will be biased.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/recuse#:~:text=Judges%20recuse%20themselves%20when%20they,interest%20in%20the%20case's%20outcome.

Nope.

Proc92 said:

---

Nope.

---

WGAS?

No

Conservative Justice has opinion in line with 90% of Republicans

Liberals are aghast at wrong think!

Must Resign!!!!

For starters, its an assumption that it involved his wife's text. But let's say it did.

Do you REALLY think Thomas would have been the lone dissent (only justice that would grant the petition) if he knew his wife's text messages were an issue?

No. SCOTUS justices do what they want, no oversight on recusals. Didn't involve him.

Also, his opinion always adds value.

Finally, it is the leftists on the court who refuse to recuse themselves when their partisan writings/speeches vs./involving litigants and issues are called into question. See: RBG.

No.

To be clear, her text messages with Meadows had been turned over to the committee before that decision on another matter came down.

Quote:

---

Third, and most notably, the messages were already disclosed. That fact is buried in the New Yorker article, which noted that when the Court was considering the issue, "Meadows had already turned over to the congressional committee some 2,300 texts and … they included the 29-message exchange between him and Ginni Thomas."

---

Link

Just like all the other's have done in the past? Sure.... hahahaha

To answer the question we'd have to know whether he knew about the texts before any pre-trial / trial / ruling took place.

Do you know everything your S.O. texts with his / her friends, coworkers, acquaintances? I'd rather not.

No and this one isn't close.

aggiehawg said:

---

No.

To be clear, her text messages with Meadows had been turned over to the committee before that decision on another matter came down.

Quote:

---

Third, and most notably, the messages were already disclosed. That fact is buried in the New Yorker article, which noted that when the Court was considering the issue, "Meadows had already turned over to the congressional committee some 2,300 texts and … they included the 29-message exchange between him and Ginni Thomas."

---

Link

---

Yep. His "no" vote did not involve his wife in any way. No conflict.

aggiehawg said:

---

No.

To be clear, her text messages with Meadows had been turned over to the committee before that decision on another matter came down.

Quote:

---

Third, and most notably, the messages were already disclosed. That fact is buried in the New Yorker article, which noted that when the Court was considering the issue, "Meadows had already turned over to the congressional committee some 2,300 texts and … they included the 29-message exchange between him and Ginni Thomas."

---

Link

---

Then why should he have not recused himself if he knew his wife was involved in the case?

For record, Justice Breyer, whose brother is a federal judge, and Justice Alito, whose sister is a partner at K&L Gates, have recused themselves from multiple cases involving their siblings.

hoopla said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

No.

To be clear, her text messages with Meadows had been turned over to the committee before that decision on another matter came down.

Quote:

---

Third, and most notably, the messages were already disclosed. That fact is buried in the New Yorker article, which noted that when the Court was considering the issue, "Meadows had already turned over to the congressional committee some 2,300 texts and … they included the 29-message exchange between him and Ginni Thomas."

---

Link

---

Then why should he have not recused himself if he knew his wife was involved in the case?

For record, Justice Breyer, whose brother is a federal judge, and Justice Alito, whose sister is a partner at K&L Gates, have recused themselves from multiple cases involving there siblings.

---

Read my post again. She was not involved in the case before the Court.

aggiehawg said:

---

hoopla said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

No.

To be clear, her text messages with Meadows had been turned over to the committee before that decision on another matter came down.

Quote:

---

Third, and most notably, the messages were already disclosed. That fact is buried in the New Yorker article, which noted that when the Court was considering the issue, "Meadows had already turned over to the congressional committee some 2,300 texts and … they included the 29-message exchange between him and Ginni Thomas."

---

Link

---

Then why should he have not recused himself if he knew his wife was involved in the case?

For record, Justice Breyer, whose brother is a federal judge, and Justice Alito, whose sister is a partner at K&L Gates, have recused themselves from multiple cases involving there siblings.

---

Read my post again. She was not involved in the case before the Court.

---

Turley makes a good point.

He makes another one here:

None of that means that a recusal was not warranted. If Thomas knew of his wife's messages, recusal could have avoided the "appearance" of a conflict, even if all of the emails were previously disclosed. That is the standard governing recusal questions for lower court judges, although the justices -- wrongly, in my view -- maintain they are not controlled by the Code of Judicial Ethics.

Zero chance a liberal justice would have recused themselves under those circumstances and an even lower chance that any media organization would have even bothered to think about reporting on it. The thought wouldn't even cross their minds. American liberals are the biggest group of hypocrites the planet has ever seen.

Did Kagan recuse herself on the viability of a bill she helped create?

hoopla said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

hoopla said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

No.

To be clear, her text messages with Meadows had been turned over to the committee before that decision on another matter came down.

Quote:

---

Third, and most notably, the messages were already disclosed. That fact is buried in the New Yorker article, which noted that when the Court was considering the issue, "Meadows had already turned over to the congressional committee some 2,300 texts and … they included the 29-message exchange between him and Ginni Thomas."

---

Link

---

Then why should he have not recused himself if he knew his wife was involved in the case?

For record, Justice Breyer, whose brother is a federal judge, and Justice Alito, whose sister is a partner at K&L Gates, have recused themselves from multiple cases involving there siblings.

---

Read my post again. She was not involved in the case before the Court.

---

Turley makes a good point.

He makes another one here:

None of that means that a recusal was not warranted. If Thomas knew of his wife's messages, recusal could have avoided the "appearance" of a conflict, even if all of the emails were previously disclosed. That is the standard governing recusal questions for lower court judges, although the justices -- wrongly, in my view -- maintain they are not controlled by the Code of Judicial Ethics.

---

The case was about Executive Privilege. Communications between Meadows and Ginni Thomas are not even arguably covered by that. Justice Thomas took the same position on Executive Privilege that he has many times before. His dissent was not s departure.

If Congress wants SCOTUS to be bound by the Code of Judicial Ethics, they should pass a law saying so.

Of course not.

hoopla said:

---

...in the case that involved his wife?

---

You are using the term "involved" about as loosely as possible.

aggiehawg said:

---

hoopla said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

hoopla said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

No.

To be clear, her text messages with Meadows had been turned over to the committee before that decision on another matter came down.

Quote:

---

Third, and most notably, the messages were already disclosed. That fact is buried in the New Yorker article, which noted that when the Court was considering the issue, "Meadows had already turned over to the congressional committee some 2,300 texts and … they included the 29-message exchange between him and Ginni Thomas."

---

Link

---

Then why should he have not recused himself if he knew his wife was involved in the case?

For record, Justice Breyer, whose brother is a federal judge, and Justice Alito, whose sister is a partner at K&L Gates, have recused themselves from multiple cases involving there siblings.

---

Read my post again. She was not involved in the case before the Court.

---

Turley makes a good point.

He makes another one here:

None of that means that a recusal was not warranted. If Thomas knew of his wife's messages, recusal could have avoided the "appearance" of a conflict, even if all of the emails were previously disclosed. That is the standard governing recusal questions for lower court judges, although the justices -- wrongly, in my view -- maintain they are not controlled by the Code of Judicial Ethics.

---

The case was about Executive Privilege. Communications between Meadows and Ginni Thomas are not even arguably covered by that. Justice Thomas took the same position on Executive Privilege that he has many times before. His dissent was not s departure.

If Congress wants SCOTUS to be bound by the Code of Judicial Ethics, they should pass a law saying so.

---

I don't believe Congress has that power. The court would have to do it themselves or it would have to be done by Constitutional amendment.

Yes they do. If they have the power to change the number of justices on the Court, they have the power to bind hem to a Code of Ethics.

No, of course not. That's an incredibly idiotic idea in the first place.

hoopla said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

hoopla said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

hoopla said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

No.

To be clear, her text messages with Meadows had been turned over to the committee before that decision on another matter came down.

Quote:

---

Third, and most notably, the messages were already disclosed. That fact is buried in the New Yorker article, which noted that when the Court was considering the issue, "Meadows had already turned over to the congressional committee some 2,300 texts and … they included the 29-message exchange between him and Ginni Thomas."

---

Link

---

Then why should he have not recused himself if he knew his wife was involved in the case?

For record, Justice Breyer, whose brother is a federal judge, and Justice Alito, whose sister is a partner at K&L Gates, have recused themselves from multiple cases involving there siblings.

---

Read my post again. She was not involved in the case before the Court.

---

Turley makes a good point.

He makes another one here:

None of that means that a recusal was not warranted. If Thomas knew of his wife's messages, recusal could have avoided the "appearance" of a conflict, even if all of the emails were previously disclosed. That is the standard governing recusal questions for lower court judges, although the justices -- wrongly, in my view -- maintain they are not controlled by the Code of Judicial Ethics.

---

The case was about Executive Privilege. Communications between Meadows and Ginni Thomas are not even arguably covered by that. Justice Thomas took the same position on Executive Privilege that he has many times before. His dissent was not s departure.

If Congress wants SCOTUS to be bound by the Code of Judicial Ethics, they should pass a law saying so.

---

I don't believe Congress has that power. The court would have to do it themselves or it would have to be done by Constitutional amendment.

---

Tell me you don't know what you're talking about without saying "I don't know what I'm talking about.".

Legislative efforts to require the Supreme Court to abide by a code of judicial conduct would raise many questions regarding constitutional separation of powers between the Legislative and Judicial. Because the Supreme Court possesses the authority to determine the constitutionality of legislative enactments, the Supreme Court itself would appear to have a critical role in determining whether Congress may validly impose a code of ethical conduct upon it. It is difficult to predict whether the Court would uphold the constitutionality of a legislatively mandated code of conduct, as existing judicial precedent offers minimal guidance with respect to how the Court might resolve the constitutional questions. The Supreme Court has never explicitly decided, for instance, whether the federal statute requiring Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves from particular cases effects an unconstitutional legislative encroachment upon the judiciary. Nor has the Court ever directly addressed whether Congress may validly subject Supreme Court Justices to financial reporting requirements or limitations upon the receipt of gifts.

No. Democrats never recuse themselves and they are destroying America.

Not true. Sotomayor and Kagan, assuming you think they are Democrats, have recused themselves from over a hundred cases.

BigRobSA said:

---

hoopla said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

hoopla said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

hoopla said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

No.

To be clear, her text messages with Meadows had been turned over to the committee before that decision on another matter came down.

Quote:

---

Third, and most notably, the messages were already disclosed. That fact is buried in the New Yorker article, which noted that when the Court was considering the issue, "Meadows had already turned over to the congressional committee some 2,300 texts and … they included the 29-message exchange between him and Ginni Thomas."

---

Link

---

Then why should he have not recused himself if he knew his wife was involved in the case?

For record, Justice Breyer, whose brother is a federal judge, and Justice Alito, whose sister is a partner at K&L Gates, have recused themselves from multiple cases involving there siblings.

---

Read my post again. She was not involved in the case before the Court.

---

Turley makes a good point.

He makes another one here:

None of that means that a recusal was not warranted. If Thomas knew of his wife's messages, recusal could have avoided the "appearance" of a conflict, even if all of the emails were previously disclosed. That is the standard governing recusal questions for lower court judges, although the justices -- wrongly, in my view -- maintain they are not controlled by the Code of Judicial Ethics.

---

The case was about Executive Privilege. Communications between Meadows and Ginni Thomas are not even arguably covered by that. Justice Thomas took the same position on Executive Privilege that he has many times before. His dissent was not s departure.

If Congress wants SCOTUS to be bound by the Code of Judicial Ethics, they should pass a law saying so.

---

I don't believe Congress has that power. The court would have to do it themselves or it would have to be done by Constitutional amendment.

---

Tell me you don't know what you're talking about without saying "I don't know what I'm talking about.".

---

There was already a strong hint of this for just showing up to try to dunk on Thomas. You never see this person in normal discussion, just runs with some far-left sheeple talking points to try to dunk. Outcome: predictable.

The black guy, once again, stepped outside the plantation gates and must be whipped and chained.




Good Lord, the incessant idiocy from the left over this non-event is mind-boggling until you remember how bereft of intellect and morae they are.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

---

You promised to delete that footage of me!!

Democrats impeached the last president for attempting to investigate the blatant and heinous corruption of the current president. Now they are complaining about this. Insanity doesn't come close to describing what we're dealing with from our lefto-commie countrymen.

No, I do not think Thomas was/is obligated to recuse himself on this case. And he has every right to be married to a crazy person.

As mentioned, he was the sole dissent in Trump's 1-8 SCOTUS loss which rejected Trump's executive priv. objections to the release of White House materials (for the Jan 6 committee). But that is consistent with his past views, votes, ruling on similar topics. So it's not as if he dissented merely because he knew of his wife's texts. And he knew at least some of context of Ginni's texts with the WH.

Likewise, it's not as if everyone is just learning that Ginni Thomas is a major Republican political activist and involved in lobbying groups. She has been for years, as well as participating in several conservative groups. She is a powerful and wealthy political figure. But we knew that already.

With that said, if I believed in a "Deep State" existing ... this would be a gold mine!!!

It's clear from the texts that Ginni bought into a lot of Sydney Powell's garbage, the Kraken as well as QAnon themes, white hats, watermarked ballots, Quantum Financial System, Guantanamo. Too bad threads get deleted. It's clear that folks like her and Lindell had the ear of Trump and fed him full of a lot of nonsense. Ginni Thomas isn't merely expressing an opinion, she is in active dialogue with the WH leadership giving all sorts of recommendations and ideas (yes, these are opinions themselves). But I don't think that's reason for the Justice to recuse no matter how wild the texts are. She also texts like a high-school senior combined with an unnecessary amount of word capitalization like Trump, but that's just personal preference.

Recuse? No
Bizarre and embarrassing? Yes

hoopla said:

---

...in the case that involved his wife?

Assuming he knew that she was communicating with the Chief of Staff of the Executive.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a272_9p6b.pdf

The Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution require judges to recuse themselves from cases in two situations:

Where the judge has a financial interest in the case's outcome.
Where there is otherwise a strong possibility that the judge's decision will be biased.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/recuse#:~:text=Judges%20recuse%20themselves%20when%20they,interest%20in%20the%20case's%20outcome.

---

No.

The left never recuses itself on SCOTUS cases.

So No.

hoopla said:

---

Not true. Sotomayor and Kagan, assuming you think they are Democrats, have recused themselves from over a hundred cases.

---

Which cases of any real substance did they recuse themselves from?

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

hoopla said:

---

Not true. Sotomayor and Kagan, assuming you think they are Democrats, have recused themselves from over a hundred cases.

---

Which cases of any real substance did they recuse themselves from?

---

More importantly how many has our super honest media reported on before this?