Posted on 01/28/2022 7:36:37 AM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
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.
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.
BS
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.
I’ve held that affirmative action is unconstitutional from the first time I heard of it. 30 years maybe?
Because he’s a conservative.
More importantly, will this former dean of Harvard Law school recuse herself?
Clarence Thomas, the hardline conservative supreme court justice, is facing calls for his recusal in the case over race-based affirmative action in college admissions that the court agreed to hear this week.
________________________________________________________
Bwahahahahaha! The Left only wishes this were true.
Why? Because he’ll follow the Constitution and they know it.
Libs never recuse.
The headline was answered in the first sentence of the excerpt. Didn’t have to read further.
Pelosi and her hubby and stock purchases and sales?? She helps make the laws that regulate this stuff.
Thomas shouldn’t but Sotomayor should.
Just this session Sotomayor began publicly testifying with fake facts in the COVID OSHA case. Nobody introduced those fake facts but her. When that came out she should have recused herself for obvious bias but nope, leftist so it’s fine.
Who was the justice doing same-sex marriages before they legalized them?
In the federal government, they all have loads of potential conflicts of interests.
I believe the Supreme Court knew it was unconstitutional but assumed it was a temporary measure - and 50 years later it has only worsened the situation in terms of true gains by the “beneficiaries”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.