The media's war on Clarence and Ginni Thomas

[Geee]

Washington Examinerr

For 30 years, Justice Clarence Thomas has remained unbowed by the Left’s political, and often race-based, attacks. With a growing majority of Supreme Court justices more aligned with Thomas’s jurisprudence, and with major rulings coming this spring and next term on abortion, affirmative action, and guns, the attacks on Thomas have focused on his wife, Ginni. Having failed to intimidate Thomas on his judicial opinions, the new tack is aimed at forcing his recusal from cases.

The supposed standards now being applied to Justice Thomas and his wife are either invented from whole cloth or distorted beyond recognition. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer struck first in late January, continuing her long vendetta against Thomas, dating back to her error-filled 1994 book Strange Justice, which played on the racist tropes that Thomas was merely the black hand puppet of the white Justice Antonin Scalia. Mayer, quickly echoed by journalists from the Washington Post, CNN, the New Republic, ABC, the Nation, and just this week the New York Times, seeks to portray Ginni Thomas’s public policy work as a threat to the Supreme Court in order to pressure Thomas to recuse himself from any case that Ginni, or any of the groups she has worked with, has even commented on.

The New Republic’s Michael Tomasky, for example, wrote that because Ginni publicly opined that Obamacare was “a disaster,” Thomas was required to recuse himself from that case. Despite the fact that having a spouse with (gasp!) opinions has never been the basis for recusal by any other justice or judge, Tomasky argues that Thomas should be impeached for failing to recuse himself from cases involving Obamacare and others.

The relevant part of the judicial recusal statute requires federal judges to recuse from cases when a family member is a party to a case, when the judge knows a family member has “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of a proceeding,” or when a judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

[Geee]

The Times Peddles Falsehoods About Ginni Thomas

The New York Times Magazine is out with a long attack piece, smearing Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni. We can say with certainty based on personal experience that at least one aspect of their coverage is fake news.

On January 24, 2019, we, along with a number of conservative leaders from the Groundswell working coalition, met with President Trump in the West Wing to humbly offer our support to help him achieve his agenda.

The primary point we sought to emphasize to the president that day was our belief he was not being served by many NeverTrumpers getting plum appointments in the first half of the Trump Administration. Establishment Republicans who opposed his agenda were filling administration vacancies. Genuine Trump supporters were being shut out. Trump personnel were undermining Trump policy to the detriment of the president and those who voted for him.

 

In response to the president’s request for specific concerns, attendees identified former John Boehner staffer and head of the Office of Presidential Personnel, Johnny DeStefano, as an official uniquely responsible for preventing political appointees who shared the president’s agenda from entering his administration.

This evidently struck a chord and energized the room, as DeStefano was in attendance.

The group proceeded to discuss a number of other topics concerning policy and politics with the president, such as suggested themes for the upcoming State of the Union address.

Soon after our meeting with President Trump, several hostile White House staffers colluded with the left-wing media to craft a series of hit pieces about our meeting. While we have continued to abide by the confidentiality request attached to the meeting, those insiders who were stung by our message to the president leaked details that were slanderous, cartoonish, and, in some instances, complete lies. The swamp-friendly staffers provided the New York Times with anonymous false accounts about the meeting with the president.

[Geee]

Clarence and Ginni Thomas Embody Integrity in Public Service

The militant Left is attacking the principled public service of Justice Clarence Thomas again, this time by targeting his wife Ginni in a malicious attempt to delegitimize Supreme Court decisions that are faithful to the original meaning of the Constitution. 

The Left has targeted Clarence all his career. We all saw his promise when President Ronald Reagan appointed him as assistant secretary of education for civil rights in 1981, and then promoted him at the first opportunity, nominating him as chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1982. 

The Reagan White House thought very highly of Clarence.  And in the next administration, we were thrilled to see President George H.W. Bush nominated this brilliant and principled young leader to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 1990 to occupy the seat left vacant by another exceptional jurist, Judge Robert Bork.

President Bush could not have done better when he later nominated Clarence to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Thomas has been the Rock of Gibraltar, steadfast in his principled commitment to originalism, the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the meaning of its words when the American people adopted them, and that judges must faithfully adhere to the text of written laws, leaving it to elected leaders to decide when change is called for and to enact that change through the democratic process. 

[Valin]

On 2/26/2022 at 7:48 AM, Geee said:

Jane Mayer struck first in late January, continuing her long vendetta against Thomas, dating back to her error-filled 1994 book Strange Justice, which played on the racist tropes that Thomas was merely the black hand puppet of the white Justice Antonin Scalia.
 

 

Could it then be that Joe Biden is merely a white sock puppet for black Barack Obama?

[Geee]

Media Smeared Clarence Thomas’s Wife For ‘Agitating’ On A Listserv. Here’s The Sweet Thing She Actually Said

[Geee]

Ginni Thomas's texts: Does a spouse's opinion disqualify a Supreme Court justice? - Jonathan Turley

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas may have been released from the hospital this week with a clean bill of health, but he was immediately met by a chorus of pundits and professors in a media frenzy calling for Thomas’s recusal from an array of cases. Rep. IIhan Omar (D-Minn.) even called for Thomas to be impeached; others, like MSNBC's Mehdi Hasan, echoed that call.

The reason? Thomas's wife, Ginni, and her communications with White House staff before the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill.

Earlier this year, the House of Representatives’ Jan. 6 committee won an 8-1 victory before the Supreme Court, which rejected Trump’s privilege objections to the release of White House materials. The sole dissenting vote was cast by Thomas. 

Soon after receiving the disputed emails and texts, the predictable leaks began from Congress, including 29 email and text messages from Ginni Thomas encouraging Trump’s then-White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to fight what she saw as a stolen election. Most of these messages preceded Jan. 6 and voiced such views as her Nov. 19, 2020, message to Meadows: "Sounds like [Trump attorney] Sidney [Powell] and her team are getting inundated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down."

The leaks had their intended effect. The media exploded with strikingly similar headlines, like Salon's "'Extraordinary level of corruption': Legal experts shocked by Ginni Thomas' QAnon texts" and the New Yorker's "Legal Scholars Are Shocked By Ginni Thomas’s 'Stop the Steal' Texts." The airwaves again are filled with shocked experts doing their best Claude Rains interpretation for cable audiences.

[Valin]

2 hours ago, Geee said:

Ginni Thomas's texts: Does a spouse's opinion disqualify a Supreme Court justice? - Jonathan Turley

 

The leaks had their intended effect. The media exploded with strikingly similar headlines, like Salon's "'Extraordinary level of corruption': Legal experts shocked by Ginni Thomas' QAnon texts" and the New Yorker's "Legal Scholars Are Shocked By Ginni Thomas’s 'Stop the Steal' Texts." The airwaves again are filled with shocked experts doing their best Claude Rains interpretation for cable audiences.

QAnon Text's...Really? They were taken seriously for around a week (if memory serves). This is much like the Birthers and the Truthers.

[Geee]

53 minutes ago, Valin said:

QAnon Text's...Really? They were taken seriously for around a week (if memory serves). This is much like the Birthers and the Truthers.

As I see it - whatever she said, if it was legal, is no issue. Where are all these womens rights feminatzis??? Not standing up for womens sports or a womens right to have

a different point of view than her spouse.  So, Ginni, stay home and shut up. Barefoot and in the kitchen would be nice also 

[Valin]

2 hours ago, Geee said:

As I see it - whatever she said, if it was legal, is no issue. Where are all these womens rights feminatzis??? Not standing up for womens sports or a womens right to have

a different point of view than her spouse.  So, Ginni, stay home and shut up. Barefoot and in the kitchen would be nice also 

The problem is these womens rights feminatzis, are not i favor of Womens Rights for all Women. Ginni Thomas is not the Proper kind of woman.

See Thoughts from the ammo line part 1 & 2.

 

 

These are the Proper kind of Women or should I say Womxn

 

 

 

These are obviously Not the Proper kind of woman.

The kind who men find...attractive.

[Valin]

Rick Wilson of the Lincoln Project

(Snip)

MAKE THIS WOMAN TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS!!!!  PUT IT ON TELEVISION!! Don’t say things like “This is disturbing!” call it an attack on our Democracy. IT IS! Call it Corruption. IT IS! Say that this has placed  the entire legitimacy of the Supreme Court in question. IT HAS!!  Just don’t be mild in your response. 

[Geee]

The Attacks On Clarence And Ginni Thomas Are Merely Latest In A Decades-Long Smear Campaign

 

Not only are the attacks on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni purely political, they’re deeply hypocritical.

[Valin]

What the Ginni Thomas Brouhaha is Really About

Condolences, Dems. The bums lost.

Washington Free Beacon Editors

April 2, 2022

They pulled out all the stops to keep Clarence Thomas off the Supreme Court three decades ago and failed. They went back to the well when Brett Kavanaugh was nominated and failed. So the Left tried to pack the court—and again, they failed.

With a conservative majority ensconced on the bench for a generation (inshallah!), a smear campaign tarnishing the institution—and one of its most admired members—is their next best option. Enter Ginni Thomas, wife of Clarence, whose strategically leaked text messages to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows have Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Dick Durbin eyeing an investigation. Others are calling for the justice’s recusal from all Jan. 6-related cases. And still others are demanding his impeachment. Again.

Democrats can’t change the Court’s composition, but they can try to moderate the conservative majority through relentless demagoguery, endless investigations, and by dragging their spouses through the gutter.

(Snip)

[Geee]

Clarence Thomas No Longer Teaching at DC Law School After Leftists Demand Justice be Fired Over Role in Overturning Roe v Wade

[Valin]

On 2/26/2022 at 7:48 AM, Geee said:

Washington Examinerr

For 30 years, Justice Clarence Thomas has remained unbowed by the Left’s political, and often race-based, attacks.

@Geee

Mark Paoletta answers his question in the 1st sentence.

"Then out spoke brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late;
And how can man die better than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods"

He is Uppity, he won't step aside when the white liberal walks past, kowtow to the white liberal view. I Could mention others who are Uppity.

Something Must be done, Uppity blacks, or the Democratic Party (The Left) becomes politically a minority party for the next 100 years.

[Geee]

Cancel culture came for Clarence Thomas at George Washington law. Now, he's stepped aside. - Jonathan Turley

After 11 years, students at George Washington University Law School will register for courses this fall with one notable difference: They will no longer be able to take a seminar with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The removal of Justice Thomas from the list of lecturers followed a cancel campaign that demanded the university ban him from classrooms. At 74, and looking at an upcoming term of major decisions, Thomas hardly needs the aggravation of such protests. However, his departure (even if temporary) is a great loss to students, the law school and free speech.

In a petition, Justice Thomas (and his wife) were denounced as “actively making life unsafe for thousands of students on our campus.” The impetus for the campaign was clearly the recent decision overturning Roe v. Wade, which critics charged “stripped the right to bodily autonomy of people with wombs” and called on faculty and students to “kick Clarence Thomas out of Foggy Bottom.” 

[Valin]

6 minutes ago, Geee said:

In a petition, Justice Thomas (and his wife) were denounced as *“actively making life unsafe for thousands of students on our campus.” The impetus for the campaign was clearly the recent decision overturning Roe v. Wade, which critics charged “stripped the right to bodily autonomy of people with wombs” and called on faculty and students to “kick Clarence Thomas out of Foggy Bottom.” 

 

You know, she is White. One more proof He is A Race Traitor, and not A Real Black Man.

 

*

 

[Draggingtree]

Democrats’ Forever War On Justice Clarence Thomas Ramps Up

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 09, 2023 26 Comments

[Valin]

Yale Law School Accepted a Donation for Clarence Thomas's Portrait. Five Years Later, the Painting Is Nowhere To Be Seen.
Eliana Johnson    
April 29, 2023

In the spring of 2018, Yale Law School dean Heather Gerken happily acknowledged the receipt of a donation from the Texas billionaire Harlan Crow to fund the commission of a portrait of Crow's friend, Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas.

In an April 2018 letter to Crow, Gerken thanked him for the gift and described Thomas, a 1974 graduate of the law school, as a "trailblazer."

"We are so pleased to welcome the justice to our outstanding gallery of portraits," Gerken wrote. "They will always have a place of prominence at Yale Law School." Five years later, students and faculty members say they've never seen it, and certainly not displayed in a place of prominence.

The portrait exists. Yale commissioned the New York City-based artist Jacob Collins to paint it, and Collins told the Washington Free Beacon that, according to his records, the portrait was being framed in March 2019 and that he believes it was delivered to the school shortly thereafter. Yale acknowledged his gift with a letter of thanks.

Neither Gerken nor a spokesman for the law school responded to requests for comment about the portrait's whereabouts.

(Snip)

[Valin]

[url=https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/05/in-defense-of-justice-thomas.php]In defense of Justice Thomas[/url]

Scott Johnson

May 4 2023

Mark Paoletta, a self-described friend of Justice Thomas, has posted the statement immediately below in response to the latest ProPublica hit piece on the justice headlined “Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition.” The subhead of ProPublica’s story features a quote from Richard Painter, the University of Minnesota clown whom I have written about many times before. Paoletta’s statement is accessible via Twitter. I seriously doubt that it will get the massive circulation of today’s assault, which is found roughly everywhere at the moment including the home page of the Star Tribune. I am taking the liberty of copying in Paoletta’s statement in full followed by the tweet from which I lifted it.

* * * * *

The Thomases have rarely spoken publicly about the remarkably generous efforts to help a child in need. They have always respected the privacy of this young man and his family. It is disappointing and painful, but unsurprising that some journalists and critics cannot do the same.

The Thomases—quietly and honorably—devoted twelve years of their lives to helping a beloved child in desperate need of love, support, and guidance. In 1997, Justice Thomas and his wife brought their great nephew to live with them. They agreed to take in this young child much as Justice Thomas’s grandparents had done for him and his brother in 1955. Justice Thomas’s grandparents changed the trajectory of his life, and the Thomases hoped to do the same for a child in need.

(Snip)

 

[Valin]

3 hours ago, Valin said:

[url=https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/05/in-defense-of-justice-thomas.php]In defense of Justice Thomas[/url]

Scott Johnson

May 4 2023

Mark Paoletta, a self-described friend of Justice Thomas, has posted the statement immediately below in response to the latest ProPublica hit piece on the justice headlined “Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition.” The subhead of ProPublica’s story features a quote from Richard Painter, the University of Minnesota clown whom I have written about many times before. Paoletta’s statement is accessible via Twitter. I seriously doubt that it will get the massive circulation of today’s assault, which is found roughly everywhere at the moment including the home page of the Star Tribune. I am taking the liberty of copying in Paoletta’s statement in full followed by the tweet from which I lifted it.

And Now From The Televised Mental Institution.

 

[Geee]

Democrats' scheme to bludgeon the Supreme Court exposed at Senate Judiciary Committee hearing

Failing to report consulting income by Justice Clarence Thomas’ spouse is an ethical apocalypse, but unreported consulting income by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s spouse warrants not a whisper. Thomas staying at a close friend’s home or traveling on the friend’s plane is nothing less than the “rich and famous” subsidizing his “lifestyle,” but there was not a peep when the now-deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 2018 trip to Israel —transportation, food, and lodging—was paid for by billionaire Morris Kahn.

Oh, there is one difference between those Thomas and Ginsburg examples. Thomas’ friend, Harlan Crow, did not have business before the Supreme Court, while Kahn, Ginsburg’s benefactor, did.

That same year, Justice Stephen Breyer took a trip to Ireland and Spain, with his transportation, food, and lodging paid for by billionaire J.B. Pritzker, the current Democratic governor of Illinois. No mention of that by Senate Democrats either.

No one should accept that this supposed concern about judicial ethics is genuine until, at the very least, Democrats apply the same standard across the judicial board and call out similar actions by their favorite justices.

[Valin]

1 hour ago, Geee said:

Democrats' scheme to bludgeon the Supreme Court exposed at Senate Judiciary Committee hearing

 

Something Hugh Hewitt mentioned a couple of weeks ago. This sort of thing happens All The Time with The Court.

In addition does Chuck Schumer understand A Lot of these Justices are really REALLY Smart, A Lot Smarter than him?

I have to admit part of me (the evil part) Wants to watch Clarence Thomas go toe to toe with Chuck Schumer.

 

[Valin]

Clarence Thomas predicted cancel culture long before it came for him

 Luke Wachob
May 07, 2023

Critics of Justice Clarence Thomas are working overtime to cancel him. That’s no surprise. A longtime thorn in the side of liberal causes, Thomas has evoked a particular hatred from the proponents of cancel culture since he put them on notice over a decade ago.

Thomas not only blasted their unseemly tactics, but he tried to do something about them. In a concurring opinion in the 2010 case Citizens United v. FEC, Thomas called for stronger privacy protections to fight this toxic trend.

 

CRUZ SAYS THOMAS SUBJECT TO 'RACIST VITRIOL' IN SUPREME COURT ETHICS HEARING

The core of Citizens United was not about privacy at all. The case primarily concerned a nonprofit group’s ability to promote and distribute a documentary criticizing Hillary Clinton. But the Supreme Court also reaffirmed by an 8-1 margin its past decisions allowing certain invasions of privacy when citizens contribute to a campaign for election. The lone holdout was Thomas.

Terms such as “cancel culture” and “doxxing” were still years away from catching on, but Thomas described something almost identical. He wrote of political activists using new internet tools to wreak havoc on the lives and careers of ordinary people. He told the stories of everyday people who had lost their jobs, reputations, and even their sense of safety after supporting a California ballot proposition on traditional marriage in 2008.

(Snip)

 

[Geee]

 Senate Dems target Clarence Thomas in fundraising emails: 'We cannot lose momentum'

Four Senate Democrats sent fundraising emails Friday to capitalize on allegations that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took gifts from a GOP mega-donor friend. 

Fundraising emails from Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Chris Murphy, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., which were reviewed by Fox News Digital, cited the news of reported gifts to Thomas as they called for passage of the Supreme Court Ethics Act, which would require a code of conduct for Supreme Court justices. 

 

[Valin]

9 hours ago, Geee said:

 Senate Dems target Clarence Thomas in fundraising emails: 'We cannot lose momentum'

Four Senate Democrats sent fundraising emails Friday to capitalize on allegations that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took gifts from a GOP mega-donor friend. 

Fundraising emails from Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Chris Murphy, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., which were reviewed by Fox News Digital, cited the news of reported gifts to Thomas as they called for passage of the Supreme Court Ethics Act, which would require a code of conduct for Supreme Court justices.