MSNBC welcomes on Friday the latest partisan attempt to subvert the legitimacy the Supreme Court. The New Yorker’s left-wing hack Jane Mayer to trash conservative leader Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, as a “threat to the Supreme Court.” Mayer used her vile hit piece against Ginni Thomas to demand that Justice Thomas recuse himself from numerous cases before the high court.
“Now, a new New Yorker article is raising questions about Thomas’s wife’s conservative activism….Joining me now is Jane Mayer, chief Washington correspondent for The New Yorker and author of the new article, ‘Is Ginni Thomas a Threat to the Supreme Court?,’” fill-in anchor Garrett Haake announced near the end of MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell ReportsEarly Friday afternoon
He then invited Mayer to attack Ginni Thomas over her political advocacy: “Your story lays out Ginni Thomas’s long history of conservative activism. Talk about what you found.” Mayer launched a barrage against the wife of Justice Thomas:
Well, I mean, she has been an issue for quite some time because she’s such a vocal activist in politics….But, what I was really interested in was her connections with issues that were directly before the Court. They are numerous. It is both astonishing and worrying. So that I interviewed ethics experts on the law, people like Stephen Gillers, who really is probably the foremost expert on judicial ethics, who said that she is, in his words, “behaving horribly.” And he fears that it’s undermining the administration of justice and the rule of law. Here’s the Supreme Court.Right now, the embassy is dealing with some of the most pressing issues facing the country. It also faces a challenge with the public’s support. It’s dwindled to it lowest rate.It is a worrying situation.
What Mayer failed to mention was that the “ethics expert” she cited, Stephen Gillers, is also a Democratic Party donor, absurdly advocated in 2004 that then-Democratic presidential nominee John Kery should name Bill Clinton as his running mate, and wrote for the left-wing publication The Nation.
Mayer concluded of the Thomas’s: “So, I mean, it’s got a bad odor to it. We can all agree that we want to see the Court as something more than this.It must be seen above the thing. So that we can all respect it.”
Haake at least mildly pushed back by wondering: “But just to play devil’s advocate here a little bit, I mean, is it fair to tell a spouse who’s been a conservative activist for most of her life that now she can’t pursue that career?” Mayer sneered:
You know, it’s interesting, because there are people who might say, “Well, isn’t this an anti-feminist position?” But, of course, If she chooses, she may pursue her politics. Then he needs to recuse from cases that she’s directly involved in. That’s the standard for any lower court….But sure, I mean, Clarence Thomas may step down and allow his wife to be an activist in politics and closely connected with the January 6th rebellions.
Of course that gave away Mayer’s true partisan intent, a lame attempt to sideline one of the members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ahead of a series of potentially landmark cases.
One A Day vitamins and CarShield brought Justice Thomas’s vile attack to light. This is your chance to fight back.
Below is the complete transcript from the 21 January segment.
12:00 PM ET
GARRETT HAAKE: On January 19th, the Supreme Court rejected Donald Trump’s request to intervene and stop the January 6th Committee from accessing his records. Justice Clarence Thomas was also a justice who dissent.
A new era has begun. New Yorker article is raising questions about Thomas’s wife’s conservative activism. One example, Ginni Thomas and other prominent conservatives signed a letter to Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy demanding that the House Republican Conference remove Congresswoman Cheney and Congressman Kinzinger, due to, quote, “Their egregious actions as part of the House of Representatives’ January 6th Select Committee.” Writing that, “The actions of Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger on behalf of House Democrats have given supposedly bipartisan justification to an overtly partisan political persecution that brings disrespect to our country’s rule of law, legal harassment to private citizens who have done nothing wrong, and which demeans the standing of the House.”
Jane Mayer is chief Washington correspondent. The New Yorker and author of the new article, “Is Ginni Thomas a Threat to the Supreme Court?” So, Jane, thank you for being with us. I want to say off the top that Clarence and Ginni Thomas declined to be interviewed for your article and NBC has also reached out to Justice Thomas and his wife’s political lobbying firm, Liberty Consulting, we have not heard back. Your story lays out Ginni Thomas’s long history of conservative activism. Tell us about the things you have found.
JANE MAYER: Well, I mean, she has been an issue for quite some time because she’s such a vocal activist in politics. The Court should be considered above politics. Her husband made it a point of saying this.
What I really was interested in was her connections to the Court. There are many, which is quite alarming, but also worrying. So that I interviewed ethics experts on the law, people like Stephen Gillers, who really is probably the foremost expert on judicial ethics, who said that she is, in his words, “behaving horribly.” And he fears that it’s undermining the administration of justice and the rule of law. This is because the Supreme Court has an image problem. They are currently handling the most important issues before the country. It’s dwindled to it lowest rate. It’s alarming at the moment.
What happens? You take a closer look at Ginni Thomas’s involvement. In leadership positions with those groups who have problems directly before the Court, she has taken a position. They’ve filed amicus briefs, in some cases they have asked to have their cases heard by the court. In one case, she’s actually paid – been a paid consultant, her firm has, to somebody who had business in front of the Court. Before the Court she filed an amicus short while her husband was being heard.
So, I mean, it’s got a bad odor to it. All of us agree, the Court should be above this kind of thing. You must see it as more than that. We can all be respectful of it.
HAAKE: One of the things that jumped out to me from the piece, this reporting on this private list serve called Thomas Clerk World, which includes the Justice’s former law clerks, and on which Ginni Thomas is apparently pretty active. Can you share your thoughts on this?
MAYER: It’s true. I mean, and so the – Justice Thomas is the senior justice at this point on the Court, he’s been on it for 30 years, so he has a lot of former clerks. There are 200 or so of them. A Court clerk expert told me that she was the only woman he has ever seen who is agitating for political points. Many of them are prominent now, and some even serve on the benches of other courts in the United States. It’s kind of like a sub rosa political organization at this point.
HAAKE There’s a pretty long history of justice spouses kind of stepping back from the legal world. But just to play devil’s advocate here a little bit, I mean, is it fair to tell a spouse who’s been a conservative activist for most of her life that now she can’t pursue that career?
MAYER: You know, it’s interesting, because there are people who might say, “Well, isn’t this an anti-feminist position?” But, of course, she can pursue her politics if she wants. Then he needs to recuse from cases that she’s directly involved in. That’s the standard for any lower court. And the problem with the Supreme Court is that it doesn’t really have an ethics code. This Court is above any code of conduct applicable to lower courts than the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas could be allowed to step aside, and his wife can continue being a political activist, directly linked to the January 6th Uprisings.
HAAKE
MAYER: There are so many cases. This is an extremely busy docket for this year. If you pay attention and read the article, Ginni Thomas is connected to many of the most important issues before the Court. Whether it’s Affirmative Action, for instance, where she’s on a group that has filed an amicus brief in front of the Court on that issue, against Harvard University’s Affirmative Action policies. The Court will undoubtedly be able to see the Jan 6th litigation. There are so many people she knows who organized those events. This is the gun case. She serves on a board of directors with someone who’s on the board of the National Rifle Association, which is bringing the biggest case on gun rights in many, many years. It’s affiliate in New York. It’s possible to scroll through the entire list and see that Ginni is active with many people involved in these important issues.
HAAKE: It’s a really interesting piece, online in the New Yorker, out today. Jane Mayer, we are grateful that you came on to talk about this with us.
MAYER: I am grateful for your presence.
HAAKE: You’re welcome.
About Post Author
