Ginni Thomas’ irrelevant messages

OPINION:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is under fire after someone leaked copies of text messages and emails that his wife, Ginni, exchanged with former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, which suggested former President Donald Trump should challenge the results of the 2020 election.

The press learned about the 29 communication exchanges after the court rejected Mr. Trump’s executive privilege objections by a vote of 8-1, with Justice Thomas as the sole dissenter. This prompted an immediate clamor from columnists and “ethics experts” who insisted Justice Thomas should have recused himself from the case and, more importantly, should now recuse himself from future cases pertaining to Mr. Trump, Jan. 6 and the election. 

Some have even called for Justice Thomas to be impeached, which would conveniently offer quick relief for liberals who have had a difficult time accepting the new 6-3 conservative balance on the court. 

The problem with these arguments is that Mrs. Thomas’ messages bear no rational relationship to the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and the simple fact that Mrs. Thomas has a mind of her own. She is not a surrogate of her husband, and she is allowed to have her own beliefs — even if she’s married to a Supreme Court justice. 

There is no evidence Mrs. Thomas’ messages were sent at her husband’s behest or with his knowledge. Without such evidence, her messages are no less than the same protected speech by any concerned citizen. All of the messages she sent (except one) were dispatched in November 2020, about two months before the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, and occurred at a time when many Republicans were pushing for the same type of legal action Democrats took in 2000 when suspicions arose former President George W. Bush stole the election in Florida. 

Some have suggested that Justice Thomas knew about the messages because Mrs. Thomas indicated in one exchange that she was discussing the matter with her “best friend,” a purported code for her spouse. This is hardly provable, but even if it was, the issue should not be whether Mrs. Thomas merely spoke to her husband about the election — it should be whether he had direct knowledge she was communicating with White House staff about matters under the scope of the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation.

There is no evidence to suggest the latter, but even more compelling is that at the time the court was reviewing the case, Mr. Meadows had already turned over his exchanges with Mrs. Thomas to the Jan. 6 committee. That horse was already out of the barn. 

The real problem is that liberals want Justice Thomas removed from the court any which way they can get rid of him. This was the case from the very beginning when Justice Thomas faced unproven accusations of sexual harassment designed to railroad his nomination. He endured racist comments from then-Sen. Joe Biden, who had the gall to say, “Had Thomas been white, he never would have been nominated. The only reason he’s on the court is because he’s Black.”

Since then, Democrats have vilified Justice Thomas because having an African American leading the conservative charge at the court is every liberal’s worst nightmare. 

There is no legal basis for Justice Thomas’ recusal or removal — only potential traces of sexism against Mrs. Thomas for daring to think for herself as a conservative woman — and racism against Justice Thomas for doing the same as a conservative justice appointed to the Supreme Court.