Members-Only Article
To my slight surprise, the Ginni Thomas story — the texts about her involvement in the January 6th conspiracy — appears to be escalating rapidly. Politico’s Playbook is in such a case a good barometer. A couple days ago I felt I was pushing the envelope by saying Justice Thomas should recuse himself from any Jan. 6th or Trump election (past or future elections) related cases. Over the last 36 hours, though, calls for this are not only coming from standby legal ethics experts but from a number of conservative legal types who have in the past been either indifferent to or protective of Ginni Thomas’s fairly open involvement in GOP partisan politics. (Justice Thomas was already the sole dissent in a case that could quite likely have involved — though in the event it apparently did not — communications from his wife to other participants in the Jan. 6th conspiracy.) Now the Jan. 6th committee seems prepped to ask her to testify and, if she doesn’t agree, subpoena her, though here there appears to be a division centering around Liz Cheney.
But all of this, I would say, dances around the real issue that I think all of us understand. Ginni Thomas obviously discussed all of this with her husband. We can pretend not to know this but we do. It was very clear that much of this controversy would or could end up before the Supreme Court. After all, this all turns on the fundamental laws of the state, which only the Supreme Court can arbitrate. Is there anything about these texts, either their substance or their affect, that tells you, “Oh, well, she clearly felt strongly about this but she would know not to broach the subject with her husband or push him on it.” Oh course, not. These texts are from someone who is fully feral, invoking God, a pitched battle between good and evil and more. Of course she talked about it with her husband! She thinks Joe Biden is an illegitimate interloper and for the first time in a quarter millennium patriots must overturn an election and install the loser in office and she’s going to be mindful of not discussing the matter with her husband? That’s clearly absurd.
Given what we know about their politics-saturated marriage (entirely common in DC) and their shared political activism which has been very public for decades, it’s all but a certainty not only that the two discussed it extensively but that the two were on the same page. You think we don’t know that? Gimme a break.
There is some informed speculation now that in one of Ginni Thomas’s more unhinged texts that she is actually referring to discussions with her husband. Who knows where that will go? But we don’t need to scrutinize the texts for that. Questions of conflicts of interest or recusal in this case are technical and fairly precious. You cannot look at these texts and not know to close to a certainty, based on the texts, what is publicly known about their relationship and their history of shared partisan political activism and not know that they not only discussed the matter but that he was on the same page with her. So Thomas himself was also a party to this conspiracy, privy to its actions and goals if perhaps not taking affirmative steps to advance it.
The Thomases have for decades been indifferent to the need for Justices and their spouses to maintain at least some remove from active partisan politics. But attempts to overthrow the state itself are by definition not legitimate political activity. You cannot be a guardian of the constitution if you have also made war on it.
