I couldn't read the whole dribble. If that was the worst they have it's nothing. She is intitled to an opinion just like everyone else.
Not according the the left.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-s-clarence-thomas-released-from-hospital-after-week-long-stay/ar-AAVuSqTThey are dredging up ethics "authorities" who are authoritatively proclaiming that it's a conflict of interest, so Clarence Thomas must go. Basically, they smell blood in the water and they're trying extra hard to get Biden another nomination so they can push the court back toward the leftist/liberal/woke orientation they so dearly want.
According to the rules, only Justice Thomas can say if there's a conflict of interest rising to a level that would call for him to recuse himself. He and his wife have been married for a long time. I'm fairly certain that they have had a few discussions about her freedom to hold her opinions and to not try to influence him, and his freedom to vote his view of the law in cases without incurring her wrath.
My parents were both registered Republicans, because when I was growing up our little town was Republican. The Democrats (who have since taken over, and pretty much ruined the place) were a tiny minority. Nonetheless, my father was such a staunch Republican that he would have voted for Attila the Hun if Attila had been a Republican. My mother found such unreasoning loyalty to the party sufficiently troublesome that she always voted Democratic, just to counteract my father's vote. (Yeah, that was an equally unreasoning strategy, but Mom didn't see it that way.) So IMHO the fact that Mrs. Thomas holds certain opinions and exercises her freedom to express them is a HUGE nothingburger.
[Edit to add]Here's how far they're trying to push it: From the same link I posted above:
Stephen Gillers, an ethics expert at New York University Law School, said Justice Thomas had an obligation under the recusal statute to know about his wife’s activities. He can’t claim ignorance about her work, Gillers said, or intentionally avoid becoming informed about her actions.
“It was his job to ensure the public would not question his impartiality” in cases involving the 2020 election and Congress’s investigation of the attack on the Capitol, Gillers said. “The public would suspect that the Thomases talked about the post-election challenge.”
So, according to this mental giant, a Supreme Court justice who
intentionally lives his life in a way that preserves his objectivity is
WRONG. Apparently this clown thinks justices aren't allowed be objective -- they apparently have an affirmative obligation to inform themselves of things that might create a conflict of interest ... so they can then be required to recuse themselves on the basis of the conflict that they intentionally didn't avoid.
Words fail me.
