In a surprising turn of events, photographic evidence revealed the contents of a folder used by Bondi during questioning. The folder contained notes that appeared unrelated to official Department of Justice matters. Inside, Bondi had gathered social media screenshots, pre-written responses, and handwritten notes. These were designed to help her prepare “gotcha” moments during her interaction with Whitehouse, including a response to a post about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Read More
Justice Clarence Thomas recently stated that settled legal precedent should not be treated as “gospel,” suggesting some decisions may be based on questionable foundations. He criticized the court’s adherence to precedent, advocating for a re-evaluation of “stare decisis.” Thomas’s remarks come before the Supreme Court’s new term and follow the overturning of Roe v. Wade, where he also expressed a desire to reconsider other substantive due process precedents. This stance reflects a broader conservative effort to dismantle precedents related to civil liberties and social progress.
Read More
Speaking at the Catholic University of America, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the infallibility of settled legal precedent, suggesting some rulings may lack a strong foundation. Thomas, part of the court’s conservative majority, emphasized that precedent should be based on more than just theoretical underpinnings and respectful of legal tradition. He further stated that he feels no obligation to uphold a precedent if it doesn’t make sense. This perspective comes as the court is poised to address significant cases, potentially including a challenge to the Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
Read More
Justice Clarence Thomas, during a recent appearance, argued that the Supreme Court should critically re-evaluate established legal precedents, implying they are not absolute. Thomas used a metaphor to criticize his colleagues for blindly following precedent. His remarks come as the Supreme Court prepares to address cases that could potentially overturn landmark decisions, including the legalization of same-sex marriage and key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Thomas’s views reflect his long-standing desire to revisit significant Supreme Court rulings, particularly given the current conservative majority, despite the Court’s overall reluctance to overturn past decisions.
Read More
During Supreme Court arguments concerning a Trump executive order restricting birthright citizenship, Justice Thomas questioned the historical necessity of nationwide injunctions. The Department of Justice argued that such injunctions overstep judicial authority, impacting more than just the original plaintiffs. This case centers on the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches, with a potential ruling impacting the application of federal laws across the nation. The court’s decision will have significant implications for presidential authority and access to legal remedies, potentially creating inconsistent application of fundamental rights. A ruling against nationwide injunctions could lead to a patchwork of legal interpretations and potentially leave thousands of children in a precarious legal situation.
Read More
The Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, granted death row inmate Richard Glossip a new trial, reversing the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Sotomayor, cited the prosecution’s failure to disclose key evidence of the key witness’s mental illness and drug use. Justice Thomas, dissenting, sharply criticized the majority for “stretching the law at every turn” to prevent Glossip’s execution, arguing the Court disregarded established legal principles and the victim’s family’s wishes. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s ruling.
Read More
The Judicial Conference refused to refer Justice Clarence Thomas to the Department of Justice for investigation despite his failure to disclose lavish gifts and travel, citing jurisdictional concerns and claiming his amended disclosures addressed the issues. This decision effectively guts the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which explicitly grants the Conference this referral power, leaving Thomas without accountability for his actions. The Conference’s assertion that Thomas is now compliant is contradicted by evidence showing continued omissions in his disclosures. This lack of accountability highlights the judiciary’s inability to police itself and foreshadows a likely lack of investigation by the incoming Trump administration, solidifying a system where powerful figures face no repercussions for ethical violations.
Read More
The Judicial Conference rejected requests to refer Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Justice Department for ethics investigations. This decision, outlined in letters to Senator Whitehouse and Representative Johnson, cited both justices’ amended financial disclosures and legal uncertainty regarding the Conference’s authority over Supreme Court justices. The Conference Secretary argued that Congressional authorization would be necessary for such referrals. Despite these actions, critics contend the Judicial Conference failed to adequately address whether Justice Thomas willfully violated disclosure laws.
Read More
The U.S. Judicial Conference declined to refer ethics complaints against Justices Thomas and Jackson to the Justice Department, citing the lack of clarity on whether such referrals are permissible and noting ongoing external investigations. Justice Thomas will adhere to updated disclosure guidelines for gifts and hospitality, addressing concerns about unreported luxury trips. Justice Jackson has already amended her disclosures. The Conference’s inaction underscores the need for Congress to establish a more robust mechanism for investigating judicial ethics violations.
Read More
The US Supreme Court’s refusal to refer Justice Clarence Thomas to the Department of Justice for investigation regarding undeclared gifts and travel highlights a concerning trend: the apparent exemption of high-ranking officials from accountability. The judiciary’s decision, based on Thomas’s amended financial disclosures and the ongoing review of financial disclosure guidelines, leaves many feeling disillusioned. The argument that the updates to disclosure requirements and Thomas’s subsequent compliance render the initial complaint moot raises questions about the effectiveness of self-regulation within the judicial branch.
This decision, communicated through a letter from the secretary to the U.S. Judicial Conference, directly rejects a request from Democratic lawmakers who had argued that Thomas’s actions constituted a willful violation of the Ethics in Government Act.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood