[where's_the_Outrage?]

So if your spouse has a viewpoint or action on an issue with your job you have to recluse yourself from that issue.

Be interesting to see that standard throughout Government (e.g, Jill Biden advising Brandon).

[Scrambler Bob]

So female SCOTI should recuse themselves in Roe v Wade cases?

[Sacajaweau]

Ridiculous...

[budj]

Sorry, but the Wise Blackino will do what he does.

[throwthebumsout]

Did Elena Kagan recuse herself in the challenge to President Obama’s health-care plan? She was involved, from the beginning, in the Obama administration’s litigation strategy defending the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).

[Sans-Culotte]

After Kagan didn’t recuse herself from the Obamacare decisions, Thomas should tell the critics to FOAD.

[qaz123]

Shouldn’t the Wise Latina, for her past comments on the subject?

[robel]

Thomas is too smart to fall for the democrats manipulations, the gop is too stupid and corrupt to resist the democrats manipulations.

[kiryandil]

Because the racist KKK Democrats are racist...

[rbg81]

When was the last time a liberal SCOTUS justice recused themselves for ANY reason?

[READINABLUESTATE]

It’ humorous to witness the mental gymnastics liberals go through to find a reason to oppose common sense.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Oh boy...

"hardline conservative"

"prominent rightwing"

"could present appearances of conflict of interest"

The Guardian, natch.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Sounds like this is a good reason why we shouldn’t have minorities on the SCOTUS. They have to ‘recuse’ themselves.

[Pearfect]

The guardian is a left wing RAG.

PROPAGANDA.

Don’t believe anything you read in the left wing media.

[rktman]

Yeah, because what would some black guy know about the lie that is affirmative action? His wife isn’t ‘black’ so how could he offer a fair opinion? Gerrard! I really dislike a lot of these ‘urinalists’.

[BipolarBob]

Applies to conservatives - ONLY.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

This will be a huge fail. It would be different if his wife had a huge financial interest in a case because that would benefit her husband, but that’s not it. They’re simply talking about her viewpoint/opinion. Spousal viewpoint/opinion is never grounds for recusal.

[Verginius Rufus]

Thomas was picked to replace Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court justice. No doubt Bush believed he was expected to replace a black justice with another black justice, so Clarence Thomas was arguably the beneficiary of affirmative action (as was Sotomayor). If both recused themselves it would be a wash.

[1Old Pro]

Ginni Thomas sits on the advisory board of the National Association of Scholars. Observers are concerned that her position with a group that has intervened in the affirmative action case could present appearances of conflict of interest.

BS

[Be Free]

If these leftist activists truly believed in affirmative action, they would point to Clarence Thomas as a shining example of a minority reaching the highest levels in the land. Or better still, instead of pushing for him to recuse, they should give him 2 votes, instead of 1, because the other members of the court only got where they are through systemic racism, while he earned his spot.

[SaxxonWoods]

I’ve held that affirmative action is unconstitutional from the first time I heard of it. 30 years maybe?