{"id":7728,"date":"2022-04-24T18:35:59","date_gmt":"2022-04-24T18:35:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=7728"},"modified":"2022-04-24T18:35:59","modified_gmt":"2022-04-24T18:35:59","slug":"clarence-thomass-long-fight-against-fair-and-democratic-elections","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=7728","title":{"rendered":"Clarence Thomas\u2019s long fight against fair and democratic elections"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\n\n“We now know that Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, spent the weeks after the 2020 election cheerleading the Trump White House\u2019s efforts to overturn President Joe Biden\u2019s victory in that election<\/a>. One detail we do not yet know, however, is what Justice Thomas knew about his wife\u2019s communications, and whether he tried to use his office to protect her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In January, the Supreme Court permitted the US House committee investigating the January 6 attacks on the Capitol to obtain hundreds of pages of White House records<\/a> that may shine a light on former President Donald Trump\u2019s efforts to thwart the peaceful transfer of power to Biden. These records may or may not contain additional evidence linking Ginni Thomas to January 6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Clarence Thomas had his way, the House committee and the public would never know. Thomas was the only justice to publicly dissent<\/a> from the Supreme Court\u2019s decision to let the House committee obtain these records \u2014 though he offered no explanation for why he dissented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But here\u2019s the thing: Yes, Thomas\u2019s vote in this case, Trump v. Thompson<\/em>, may have been an underhanded effort to protect his own wife. But his vote in Trump <\/em>was entirely consistent with his record in cases where his spouse does not have a personal interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In more than three decades on the Supreme Court, Thomas has consistently voted to make it harder for many Americans to have their vote count<\/a>; to erode institutions, like a free press<\/a>, that are essential to democracy; and to dismantle nearly a century\u2019s worth of democratically enacted laws<\/a> on spurious constitutional grounds. Thomas\u2019s opposition to democracy is not rooted in nepotism. It appears to be quite principled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among other things, Thomas is the only sitting justice who voted to install a Republican president in Bush v. Gore<\/em><\/a> (2000) \u2014 although three other current justices were part of Republican George W. Bush\u2019s legal team<\/a> in that case. Thomas would allow Republican administrations to deactivate the entire Voting Rights Act<\/a> so long as they are in power. He would strip journalists of First Amendment rights<\/a> that allow them to safely provide critical coverage of government officials. And he would invalidate a long list of laws including the federal bans on child labor and on whites-only lunch counters<\/a>, based on a widely rejected reading of the constitutional provision that grants Congress most of its power over the private sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No matter how the scandal with his wife\u2019s texts shakes out, it\u2019s worth remembering how the Court\u2019s longest-serving justice would shape the world. In Clarence Thomas\u2019s America, elections would be skewed so heavily in the Republican Party\u2019s favor that Democrats will struggle to ever gain power. And if Democrats somehow do manage to squeak into office, Thomas would ensure that they cannot govern.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“In 1960, civil rights activists aligned with Martin Luther King, Jr.<\/a> ran an advertisement in the New York Times, which alleged that Alabama police used brutal tactics to suppress student protests. The ad, however, contained some minor factual errors. It misidentified the song that protesters sang at a particular demonstration, for example, and it also claimed that police had arrested King seven times, when he\u2019d in fact only been arrested four times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pointing to these small errors, a Jim Crow police official won a $500,000 verdict against the Times<\/a> in an Alabama court \u2014 close to $5 million in 2022 dollars. Had this verdict stood, it would have chilled journalism of all kinds, because it would have meant that any newspaper or other outlet that prints even very small factual mistakes could have been hit with a verdict large enough to bankrupt the outlet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 The New York Times<\/em> decision, however, prevented this outcome by holding that the First Amendment imposes limits on defamation lawsuits. When someone speaks about a public figure and about a matter of public concern, the Court held, they cannot be held liable for making false statements unless that statement was made \u201cwith knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thomas argued in McKee v. Cosby<\/em> (2019) that New York Times <\/em>should be overruled. Indeed, Thomas\u2019s opinion suggests that states should be free to define their own defamation law free of constitutional constraints. \u201cThe States are perfectly capable of striking an acceptable balance between encouraging robust public discourse and providing a meaningful remedy for reputational harm,\u201d Thomas wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If this approach were to prevail, state officials could once again use malicious defamation lawsuits to target journalists<\/a>. Suppose, for example, that I mistakenly report that \u201c500 people attended a rally protesting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis,\u201d when in fact the rally was attended by only 450 people. If states can set their own defamation laws, free of constitutional constraint, then DeSantis could sue me and Vox Media for millions, endangering our ability to continue reporting on DeSantis \u2014 and potentially bankrupting Vox in the process.”  
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/2022\/3\/29\/22999755\/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-voting-rights-democracy-elections-ginni<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“We now know that Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, spent the weeks after the 2020 election cheerleading the Trump White House\u2019s efforts to overturn President Joe Biden\u2019s victory in that election. One detail we do not yet know, however, is what Justice Thomas knew about his wife\u2019s communications, and whether he tried to use his office to protect her.<\/p>\n

In January, the Supreme Court permitted the US House committee investigating the January 6 attacks on the Capitol to obtain hundreds of pages of White House records that may shine a light on former President Donald Trump\u2019s efforts to thwart the peaceful transfer of power to Biden. These records may or may not contain additional evidence linking Ginni Thomas to January 6.<\/p>\n

If Clarence Thomas had his way, the House committee and the public would never know. Thomas was the only justice to publicly dissent from the Supreme Court\u2019s decision to let the House committee obtain these records \u2014 though he offered no explanation for why he dissented.<\/p>\n

But here\u2019s the thing: Yes, Thomas\u2019s vote in this case, Trump v. Thompson, may have been an underhanded effort to protect his own wife. But his vote in Trump was entirely consistent with his record in cases where his spouse does not have a personal interest.<\/p>\n

In more than three decades on the Supreme Court, Thomas has consistently voted to make it harder for many Americans to have their vote count; to erode institutions, like a free press, that are essential to democracy; and to dismantle nearly a century\u2019s worth of democratically enacted laws on spurious constitutional grounds. Thomas\u2019s opposition to democracy is not rooted in nepotism. It appears to be quite principled.<\/p>\n

Among other things, Thomas is the only sitting justice who voted to install a Republican president in Bush v. Gore (2000) \u2014 although three other current justices were part of Republican George W. Bush\u2019s legal team in that case. Thomas would allow Republican administrations to deactivate the entire Voting Rights Act so long as they are in power. He would strip journalists of First Amendment rights that allow them to safely provide critical coverage of government officials. And he would invalidate a long list of laws including the federal bans on child labor and on whites-only lunch counters, based on a widely rejected reading of the constitutional provision that grants Congress most of its power over the private sector.<\/p>\n

No matter how the scandal with his wife\u2019s texts shakes out, it\u2019s worth remembering how the Court\u2019s longest-serving justice would shape the world. In Clarence Thomas\u2019s America, elections would be skewed so heavily in the Republican Party\u2019s favor that Democrats will struggle to ever gain power. And if Democrats somehow do manage to squeak into office, Thomas would ensure that they cannot govern.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“In 1960, civil rights activists aligned with Martin Luther King, Jr. ran an advertisement in the New York Times, which alleged that Alabama police used brutal tactics to suppress student protests. The ad, however, contained some minor factual errors. It misidentified the song that protesters sang at a particular demonstration, for example, and it also claimed that police had arrested King seven times, when he\u2019d in fact only been arrested four times.<\/p>\n

Pointing to these small errors, a Jim Crow police official won a $500,000 verdict against the Times in an Alabama court \u2014 close to $5 million in 2022 dollars. Had this verdict stood, it would have chilled journalism of all kinds, because it would have meant that any newspaper or other outlet that prints even very small factual mistakes could have been hit with a verdict large enough to bankrupt the outlet.<\/p>\n

The New York Times decision, however, prevented this outcome by holding that the First Amendment imposes limits on defamation lawsuits. When someone speaks about a public figure and about a matter of public concern, the Court held, they cannot be held liable for making false statements unless that statement was made \u201cwith knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thomas argued in McKee v. Cosby (2019) that New York Times should be overruled. Indeed, Thomas\u2019s opinion suggests that states should be free to define their own defamation law free of constitutional constraints. \u201cThe States are perfectly capable of striking an acceptable balance between encouraging robust public discourse and providing a meaningful remedy for reputational harm,\u201d Thomas wrote.<\/p>\n

If this approach were to prevail, state officials could once again use malicious defamation lawsuits to target journalists. Suppose, for example, that I mistakenly report that \u201c500 people attended a rally protesting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis,\u201d when in fact the rally was attended by only 450 people. If states can set their own defamation laws, free of constitutional constraint, then DeSantis could sue me and Vox Media for millions, endangering our ability to continue reporting on DeSantis \u2014 and potentially bankrupting Vox in the process.” <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[1603,790,431,198,1213,528],"class_list":["post-7728","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-clarence-thomas","tag-courts","tag-democracy","tag-elections","tag-judiciary","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7728","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7728"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7728\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7729,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7728\/revisions\/7729"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7728"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7728"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7728"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}