A recent letter writer ("Is a spouse's view really a violation?" Readers Write, March 29) cited Sen. Amy Klobuchar's comment that Justice Clarence Thomas committed an ethics violation. Of course, a spouse's point of view is not a violation of the code of ethics, but I'm sorry, that is not the point at all. Please look up and read the definition of recusal. Judges must (or should, if they are on the Supreme Court) recuse themselves if there is a potential conflict of interest or a lack of impartiality.
Klobuchar called out Thomas because he did not recuse himself from the vote on whether certain records should be turned over to the Jan. 6 committee. In fact, the Supreme Court voted 8-1 that the records in question must be turned over. Thomas was the only "no" vote, and it was entirely possible that some of Ginni Thomas' communications were in those records. This is a clear definition of lack of impartiality, and Thomas should have recused himself. He violated not only ethical standards but also severely damaged the integrity of the Supreme Court.
Doug Jensen, Minnetonka
•••
We're experiencing what might be one of the greatest conflicts of interest for our generation in the form of Ginni Thomas and her noted husband. Under normal circumstances, I'd say it's possible that any married couple can live happily ever after while successfully dissociating themselves from the other's politics, as long as there is respect for the other's choice. Normally I'd be inclined to give the same benefit of the doubt to a sitting Supreme Court justice because they're supposed to be professional enough to dissociate themselves from the political clamor that always surrounds them.
Supreme Court justices have the right to practice their own politics as long as they do not allow them to cloud their interpretation of the law. At least that's the theory of how it's supposed to work. Unlike the members of a jury, who can be sequestered to drown out the clamor, the justices do not live in a vacuum where they are totally divorced from the realities of our world. They even make public speeches that place their politics on display, sometimes in a very open manner. We've seen this on both sides of the political spectrum, and it is their right. In the same breath, we can say the spouse of a sitting justice has the right to their own politics. They also have the right to share them with their spouse and anyone else who is willing to listen. Indeed, it's likely that Ginni Thomas shared many of her political thoughts with her like-minded husband. It's hard to think otherwise.
Where that discourse crosses the line is when the spouse advocates for the overthrow of a legitimately elected government. As I said earlier, we always like to believe that a sitting justice can rise above the political clamor when it comes to interpreting the law. In this case, the political clamor has been lying inches away in the same bed for 35 years. That's where we edge closer to the point where simply recusing yourself from cases involving the Jan. 6 insurrection isn't enough. When Clarence Thomas took his position on the highest court in the land, he placed his hand on a Bible and swore that he would defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. I understand that most people wouldn't rat on their spouses if they were involved with the Jan. 6 insurrection, but we're just ordinary Joes and Janes who aren't one of nine elite people with a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Clarence Thomas did not have that luxury due to the oath he swore and the obligation he owes to the United States of America. As far as I'm concerned, his failure to act is grounds for impeachment.
Dale Jernberg, Minneapolis
