Clarence Thomas
We knew that judges are politicians in robes.
We knew the Supreme Court wasn't fair and objective. We consoled ourselves hoping it was middle of the road and reasonable. We can't pretend anymore.
Media discussion of court decisions give the game away.Of coursethey were partisan legislators in robes. Controversial decisions make reference to "Republican-appointed" judges and "Democrat-appointed" judges. Congress is a place of gridlock on cultural issues. It can tax and spend because it must. Otherwise the government shuts down. Decisions regarding cultural mores--race, sex, marriage-- drifted to the judicial system to resolve.
Clarence Thomas has become a problem for the court. He is like the little boy at kindergarten who insists on telling schoolmates that there isn't a Santa Claus. He reveals a secret: We are partisan, and I am shameless about it. Like the kindergarten teacher, the Chief Justice is powerless to stop him. The Bush v. Gore decision in December 2000 laid bare the naked power of the court to find some supposedly-neutral reason for making a partisan decision. The election in Florida was essentially a tie. The 5-4 Court voted Republican.
The Court, especially under institutionalist Chief Justice John Roberts, attempted to repair the damage to the Court's legitimacy. Roberts leaned against his own partisan ideology to stop the Court from over-ruling Congress to end the Affordable Care Act. That made the Court look objective and reserved. After all, it didn't overrule a law that got a House majority, 60 votes in the senate, and a presidential signature. It also served a partisan political purpose. By the time the ACA got to the Supreme Court, the law was popular. He protected the GOP from itself.
The nomination process that put Trump-appointed judges onto the court revealed the partisan reality under the veneer. Roberts could talk "balls and strikes objectivity," but the entire GOP message was partisan victory. Elections have consequences, Lindsay Graham crowed. We won, you lost. Still, there was opportunity for pretense. The selection process might be partisan, but once on the Court, judges supposedly change. They put on black robes of impartiality.
Clarence Thomas spills the beans. His wife actively lobbies the White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows with multiple text messages urging overthrow the 2020 election. She pushed Q-Anon theories of sending boatloads of Democrats to GITMO. She said the future of the republic required voiding the election. Mark Meadows returned the messages and reported what the White House was doing. These messages were already revealed to the committee, but Justice Thomas later voted to allow Trump to keep more communications like these, by others and perhaps his wife, secret. Democrats are appalled. Republicans praise Thomas. Republicans insist there is no conflict of interest, no legitimate reason to investigate what Trump and others did, and no reason for Thomas to recuse himself.
It is a high-visibility, high-stakes partisan mess. There is no hiding it. Hereafter, any Supreme Court decision relating to Trump and January 6 will be tainted. If Thomas is part of a majority, it is tainted and illegitimate, because Thomas was defending Trump and his wife's reputation and perhaps freedom. If he is part of a minority and outvoted, then it suggests the alternative, that Thomas was wrong and outvoted by more objective conservatives, but still a bad apple on the Court.
There is no time to rebuild the credibility of the Court for non-controversial objectivity. Its docket will revisit some of the most controversial items in the culture war: Abortion, homosexual rights, inter-racial marriage, contraception, and affirmative action.
The Supreme Court will announce their rulings. They will have as much credibility for objectivity and fairness as Clarence Thomas has. Not too much.