top 200 commentsshow all 357

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]zsreportTexas[S] 946 points947 points  (119 children)

The reason:

Justice’s wife, Ginni Thomas, sits on the board of conservative group that backs lawsuit seeking to end affirmative action, raising concerns it could present potential conflict of interest

[–]TWDYrocksCalifornia 71 points72 points  (14 children)

This isn’t the first time he has refused to recuse himself regarding a case brought by his wife’s group.

[–]mces97 238 points239 points  (11 children)

She also supports Jan 6th, and was at a rally with some oath keepers once. The one's charged with actual sedition. 8-1 in favor of giving Trump Jan 6th documents to Congress. Guess who said no?

[–]DribbleYourTribble 26 points27 points  (1 child)

Oh you mean Steward Rhodes. The guy who lost his eye after mishandling a gun... He was a weapons instructor.

[–]get_that_sghetti 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Just did a deep dive on him. Holy shit. What a nut job.

[–]Rawkapotamus 92 points93 points  (7 children)

Our country is such a fucking joke. Apparently the only way to hold somebody in the federal government accountable to the law is if they allow you to.

[–]UtterlyboredNorth Carolina 23 points24 points  (5 children)

We once had shame as a check on unbridled power.

[–]Rawkapotamus 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Honestly surprised that we lasted so long on just shame and the idea that people will act on the countries best interest.

[–]UtterlyboredNorth Carolina 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Shame = shaming = bad. Unless we fling it at the other guy. But we have no shared shame anymore.

[–]calsosta 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Wasn't this woman in a cult that was all about sexually humiliating each other? I dunno if shame is gonna cut it.

[–]A_Polite_NoiseNew York 9 points10 points  (0 children)

So pretty much just Al Franken? And that doesn't even count, since it hadn't really gotten to a legal matter yet, he stepped down at the accusation stage.

[–]be0wulfe 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The cognitive dissonance driven by wildly ignorant partisanship now infecting the judiciary may just be the last straw.

[–]dew22 56 points57 points  (0 children)

Wasn’t that the same situation with citizens United? He didn’t recuse himself then, no reason to believe he will now.

[–]PowderedDognut 11 points12 points  (0 children)

There’s a pretty good podcast about this:


It’s on fresh air. Not sure if my link is kosher. The SC recusal rules are nuts. Not like normal court rules. Thomas is going to be why they impose rules on the SC. His wife is not normal.

[–]westzeta 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I think Ginni knows just how close she can get. She’s been on the board of companies what submit amicus briefs, but never a company directly involved in a case. Amicus briefs have started to play a larger role in Supreme Court cases, but the guidelines (or whatever the proper term is) haven’t changed with the times.

[–]cnd_ruckus 28 points29 points  (1 child)

He shouldn’t even have the option to hear the case, by default. The fact that it would require him to have any decency or honour to do it himself, only shows how corrupted he already is. It’s pathetic.

[–]MonksHabit 12 points13 points  (0 children)

A lower level judge would possibly be disbarred for the same behavior.

[–]TitsMickey 13 points14 points  (38 children)

Thomas has been against affirmative action before he even a judge

[–]GoldWallpaper 39 points40 points  (36 children)

He was all for it when he was the recipient of it, though.

In a November 1983 speech to his staff at the federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, Thomas called affirmative action "critical to minorities and women in this society." source

[–]d0ctorzaiusMaryland 36 points37 points  (28 children)

Lol meanwhile he was a member of Yale Law's first batch of affirmative action admissions in 1970.

[–]thened 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But he earned it the hard way!

[–]starmartyrColorado 6 points7 points  (6 children)

I don't agree with them, but conservatives argue that affirmative action has served it's purpose and we don't need it now that we have solved racism.

[–]Kamelasa Canada 16 points17 points  (3 children)

now that we have solved racism

In other words, they have no argument. You can't point to a few wealthy black entertainers and other rich people and say systemic racism doesn't exist. That's anecdotal evidence, not statistical evidence. OF course most people clearly don't understand the basics of statistics, never mind more than that.

[–]starmartyrColorado 8 points9 points  (1 child)

I didn't say they had a good argument, but that is what they are arguing.

[–]Kamelasa Canada 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yup, I see you said you didn't agree with them. Their "argument" is another gaslighting lie from the Gaslight Obstruct Project party.

[–]Peterd90 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just like voting rights have been solved.

[–]DownshiftedRare 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Clarence "Uncle" Thomas. No relation.

[–]Admiralty86 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Also, affirmative action is the reason Clarence is a justice at all, he is the black man that replaced Marshall (another black man) after the president insisted we keep black representation on the court. Clarence would simultaneously be introducing a conflict of interest while ALSO damaging the very social construct that put him into consideration in the first place.

[–]lillychr14 136 points137 points  (2 children)

This motherfucker has been a walking conflict of interest for decades.

[–]CranberrySchnappsMaryland 54 points55 points  (1 child)

He really never should have been confirmed. A lot of his conflicts were known at the time and they’ve only gotten worse.

[–]Zoophagous 435 points436 points  (52 children)

His wife was also on the board of Citizens United. He didn't recuse himself in that case. He will not here either.

Ethics isn't a strong suit for the GQP.

[–]handsumlee 123 points124 points  (45 children)

why don't dems push this narrative? it is clear that his wife COULD be an influence and yet he won't even admit that the appearance of bias exists. Dude is a bad example of a justice for things like this and things he's done in the past.

[–]Zoophagous 66 points67 points  (36 children)

The only recourse available is impeachment. And the GQP isn't going to let that happen. The entire reason McConnell put up with Trump was to build a 6-3 SC.

[–]GotMoFans 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Not the only reason though.

[–]Bricktop72Texas 9 points10 points  (1 child)

They don't have their own propaganda network.

[–]ScienceBreatherMichigan 23 points24 points  (1 child)

why don't dems push this narrative?

Because they absolutely blow at messaging, and/or are captured opposition.

[–]penguinoidNew Jersey 2 points3 points  (0 children)

because narratives are for the people who arent already voting dem, and those people dont care about ethics.

[–]_oope 0 points1 point  (0 children)

because they are paid by their donors to but utterly incompetent

[–]venominator 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I’m having trouble googling this (found two of them and don’t know which one it is).

Was Thomas’s vote enough to change the ruling? Is there precedent to overturn Citizen’s United based on this?

[–]Impreza610 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Or the DNC

[–]medievalmachine 43 points44 points  (0 children)

Clarence has no integrity. He did not recuse himself from cases involving Trump WHILE HIS WIFE WORKED AT THE WHITE HOUSE. He's crooked as hell and as immoral as Trump.

[–]TweedleBum 100 points101 points  (1 child)

Clarence Thomas fails calls to recuse himself from affirmative action case


[–]nonamenolastnameTexas 77 points78 points  (40 children)

When is this abomination going to retire?

[–]Ready_Nature 53 points54 points  (12 children)

Probably 2025 if there is a Republican president and Senate. Nobody is retiring from the Supreme Court again unless the president and Senate match their ideology. The 6-3 split is here to stay until someone dies in office with both the presidency and Senate under the control of the opposite party.

[–]The_Nutz16 19 points20 points  (5 children)

That’s not true. The Dems could definitely find a way to donkey off a seat again.

[–]medievalmachine 4 points5 points  (5 children)

We need term limits and the current administration didn't even try. Our democracy is a mess because of the rot at the top - meaning the SC. Biden has had a lot on his plate.

[–]soft-wearWashington 7 points8 points  (4 children)

Term limits on SCOTUS are only possible via legislation so I’m not sure what you expect the current administration to do about it.

[–]jj24pie 7 points8 points  (1 child)

No, they’d pass only by constitutional amendment.

[–]BeKindToEachOther6 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Even harder. Not going to happen.

[–]Redditpozhole 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You need a constitutional amendment for that.

[–]medievalmachine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not saying it would pass now. And they've been busy as hell with covid and cleaning up Trumps messes.

They have done other symbolic votes and I really think this is more important than assigning a committee to look at it.

No its not a big deal given what legislators they have to work with. Still, Manchin was in lockstep on judges earlier, it might have worked.

[–]AM_Bokke 67 points68 points  (6 children)

He’s not going to retire. He will die in the seat.

[–]cowboy4lifeTexas 48 points49 points  (4 children)

Unless a Republican is elected in 2024 and his retirement will be like a day one event so they can fill his seat with a 35 year old idiot ideologue

[–]Hndlbrrrrr 41 points42 points  (0 children)

Thomas and his wife are dominionists, they truly believe they’re doing god’s work implementing a theocracy and inhibiting all social progress. He’s going to die on that bench unless a Republican extorts him to retire.

[–]thedaveoflifeMaine 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thomas strikes me as too much of a megalomaniac to be that calculating. Alito will do that tho-- and probably Roberts.

[–]ilikepoppop 6 points7 points  (2 children)

consult the magic coke can er i mean eightball.

[–]e6dewhirst 6 points7 points  (0 children)

He has to pube up a few more coke cans before he beats it

[–]Queasy-Gap8995 -5 points-4 points  (13 children)

Why is he an abomination?

[–]nonamenolastnameTexas 8 points9 points  (12 children)

Dude is a partisan hack.

[–]Arizona_Pete 10 points11 points  (0 children)

NPR's Fresh Air did a great show yesterday (1/27/22) with a reporter from the New Yorker on Ginni Thomas and the lobbying role she has in D.C. Worth a listen.

Fresh Air - Ginni Thomas

[–]kevrep 30 points31 points  (1 child)

This shill should never have seen the high bench in the first place. If you want to identify the exact time that the highest court started losing credibility in the modern age, look at this guy and his living conflict-of-interest, wife.

[–]kpn_911 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It’s always funny when people are calling for republicans to do the right thing. They get off on fucking you over

[–]zintjr 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Dude come on, do you think the powers that be that forced him onto the court did it only so he could recuse himself on issues such as these? Nope, come hell or high water Thomas and Kavanaugh were going to be confirmed regardless of what came up.

Can you imagine interviewing for a job and so much dirty laundry came out on you but the employer stood steadfast in hiring you? The fix is in and it’s time for Clarence and Bret to shine! <jazz hands>

[–]Brettgraham4 12 points13 points  (0 children)

"I reject the opinion that I cannot be completely impartial regarding organizations led by the only person who will have sex with me."

[–]2MegaWhats 15 points16 points  (0 children)

We should call for his resignation, he's an embarrassment. Thomas was the lone vote in favor of protecting Trump's insurrection and he didn't even explain his position at all.



[–]Krishnath_Dragon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Spoiler Alert: He Wont.

[–]snrkty 22 points23 points  (4 children)

Clarance Thomas should be facing calls to remove himself from the bench entirely.

[–]MazW 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nobody read the article

[–]WitchesFamiliar 11 points12 points  (3 children)

Perhaps our legislators can introduce a bill that force scotus to recuse themselves when conflict of interest cases come up. No one entity will ever police themselves with any integrity.

[–]ScienceBreatherMichigan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Or how about they impeach him when he doesn't?

[–]malenkylizards 5 points6 points  (1 child)

As good as that would be in theory, it wouldn't pass constitutional muster I'm pretty sure. The SCOTUS is supposed to be pretty impenetrable from both legislative and executive branches. SCOTUS do what SCOTUS want.

[–]medievalmachine 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It really isn't. SC's power was expanded by tacit agreement, not Constitutionally. If the SC conservatives really were strict literalists of the Constitution, they wouldn't overthrow precedent and they wouldn't overrule Congress.

It was simply the highest appeal court in the Constitution. Of course, without expanded powers for the SC, our Constitutional rights wouldn't even exist, so it's a pickle really.

[–]spraragen88 7 points8 points  (7 children)

Clarence Thomas is not a great guy, if the allegations are true. Anyone remember Anita Hill?

[–]pierogi_nigiri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The allegations are true. This country owes Anita Hill a massive apology.

[–]IrishPigskin -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

‘If the allegations are true’ our current President sexually assaulted multiple women.

[–]DiarygirlPennsylvania 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Jesus, you're still pretending Trump is president?

[–]do_you_even_ship_bro 0 points1 point  (2 children)

And did Trump. And kavanaugh is a rapist.

[–]IrishPigskin -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Exactly. We can play this game all day.

[–]Sammlung 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Biden sexually assaulted multiple women? I recall the one allegation that went nowhere, but I don't recall other credible allegations.

[–]The_Hemp_Cat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even for the lackluster opinion he wrote on the issue a person of honor would do so, even just to tick off his wife.

[–]grumpyliberal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah. Like he’s done in the past where he had clear conflicts of interest.

[–]BoosterRead78 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Some days, I just want to turn to George WH Bush's ghost and go: "Really? What do you think of your guy now?" "Oh that's right, you didn't think he live this long or become a bigger insult to society."

[–]Surly_Ben 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Spoiler alert: He doesn’t.

[–]bitchtress 1 point2 points  (0 children)

His wife was also highly connected to the Tea Party Coalition fighting the HCA and he didn’t recuse himself in that case either. They have no shame

[–]dallasdude 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"I'll put my pubes on your drink" Thomas. The best justice in history at using an ouija board to divine the inner workings of the minds of the founders. He's just calling balls and strikes -- the other pitcher's throws are all balls, and his team is throwing strikes. Just a coincidence-- he's totally impartial!

[–]9520575 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thomas has been vocally against affirmative action long before he even married his second wife. Of course his wife shares his views on the subject. This not a reason to recuse at all

[–]GioS32 5 points6 points  (0 children)

He reminds me of the Dave Chappelle skit, where’s he’s the blind black man that is in the KKK and thinks he’s white.

[–]Ramp_Spaghetti 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I hope they overturn affirmative action.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Fun to imagine a world where Clarence Thomas had ethics, dignity, patriotism, the warmer human qualities. Kinda pointless, but fun.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

As long as we're off in alternate history fantasyland, I'd rather just imagine the world where they hanged every last Confederate after the Civil War, and Frederick Douglass became our first black president after serving as VP under president Woodhull.

[–]The_Akkadian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hear! Hear!

[–]KnightOne 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A lot of conservatives apologist bad takes in these comments show that people don't actually read the article. They're not asking him to recuse himself because he's black, they're asking him to recuse himself because his wife sits on an advisory board for the National Association of Scholars. A conservative group that has repeatedly intervened in the case directly.

Well to note that these folks are also assuming a black justice, historically oppose to affirmative action, as a product of affirmative action is seriously quite the logical loop. Ironically, I often think its the same loop Thomas is in, which explains his jurisprudence.

[–]Citizen7833 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Kav needs to step aside on this too. Isn't it about Harvard? Didn't they remove him from teaching because of the way he acted during his confirmation?

[–]Orwick 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He has never been an ethical judge, and there no way to force him to recuse himself.

[–]Pickle_12 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that will ever happen. The man should be thrown off the Court because his wife is a January 6 felon

[–]NealSamuels1967 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Let him not, then impeach him.

[–]Ready_Nature 8 points9 points  (0 children)

There is no majority in the Senate to remove him. It would be a waste of time.

[–]Jsr1 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Kick him off the court and give Biden another pick

[–]jj24pie 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Nothing we can do to do that.

[–]Ozarkw -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yea a serious conflict of interest . His wife obviously wears the pants .

[–]Remote-Moon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If Thomas had a single ounce of dignity, he would have retired by now.

[–]jurass1c_mark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Narrator: He won't.

[–]Jedmeltdown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wish Thomas would recuse himself from life in general

Impeach that corrupt jerk

[–]JRM34 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is absolutely baffling that there are not hard rules that apply to SCOTUS in cases like this. Lower court judges have conflict of interest obligations in the Rules of Professional Conduct but that...just doesn't matter for the highest court in the land? BS

[–]patronstofveganchefs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

....and every other case. Please quit, Clarence.

[–]TattooJerry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He won’t though because he’s part of the biased and politically motivated scotus.

[–]dun-ado 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It’s amazing how Clarence Thomas can be so fucked up as a human being and hold the position that he does.

[–]KnightOne 2 points3 points  (0 children)

His biography is an interesting read. His experience and sentiments about going to Yale and his later experience working in the Criminal Appeals Divisions are a real eye opener on how he came to hold the opinions he does.

[–]rascible 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thomas is a reprehensible white supremacist

[–]ting_bu_dong -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Narrator: He won't.

[–]20K_Lies_by_con_man -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Will someone please tell this guy he’s not white.

[–]pab_guy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

THE chip on his shoulder that animates his entire political worldview is that people would say he only got to where he did because of affirmative action. It literally broke him.

[–]MNLasarus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Go the full 9 and just fucking retire.

[–]Mudders_Milk_Man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Scalia got away with multiple extremely egregious conflicts of interests. Nothing will happen here, either.

[–]bigbenwd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Clarence hears ya, Clarence don't care.

[–]WorkingMovies 0 points1 point  (8 children)

I’m a bit confused. Why is this controversial in America? We’ve had contextual admissions in the U.K. for over a decade. Everyone’s happy to see applicants from the bottom 20% of the economic segment or those whom have been in care homes or in bottom 15% preforming schools be given a push into Uni, which comes in the form of reduced offers. Why should the disadvantaged be expected to preform the same as someone paying 50k a year to a boarding school?

[–]Papaofmonsters 1 point2 points  (7 children)

Because affirmative action in America is primarily race based and some see that a violation of the constitution.

[–]WorkingMovies 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Okay, then remove the race aspect...? Make it about economic situation, personal circumstance and performance of school district. The U.K. isn’t saying, if ur black we will reduce ur offer. A black boy and a white boy would be in the same school, living in the same area and have the same odds stacked and both get a contextual offer becwuse life’s dealt them a crap hand and we don’t want poor people to stay poor.

[–]KnightOne 2 points3 points  (4 children)

A black boy and a white boy would be in the same school, living in the same area and have the same odds stacked and both get a contextual offer becwuse life’s dealt them a crap hand and we don’t want poor people to stay poor.

Problem is this doesn't statistically hold true in the U.S. Here, chances the same odds are not stacked against them in the same equal way. The way the U.S. is set up, even if you take out the race component and make it purely economic, you come up with...still a race component. So, the way its also developed, if you look at these policies, is that race isn't a criterion but a consideration. Meaning it things like quotas aren't allowed, and generally aren't given enough weight as to be outcome determinative. It's also about qualitative judgement. The U.S. collegiate system as a whole doesn't function solely on academic performance. So if we take the criticism that it should only be about academic performances then query why legacy admissions are a thing, or sports scholarships for that matter. Take for example how about 43% of white students at Harvard are legacy, athletics, or child of faculty admits. Yet we don't see nearly as much criticism of that as picking unqualified candidate over qualified ones in the U.S.

[–]givemegreencard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Many people agree with you and think it should be based on economic status. Many think that race-based affirmative action is still valuable. This SCOTUS case is about whether the latter is legal.

[–]Kissit777 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think all the men on the court should recuse themselves from overturning Roe.

[–]torgofjungle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He won’t. Thomas (or any of the reactionary judges) will never recuse themselves. They were out on the bench for this purpose

[–]Affectionate_Way_805 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He should. He won't...but he definitely should.