The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Supreme Court

Memorial service for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Photo by The White House is marked with CC PDM 1.0

Reprinted with permission from American Independent

After Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to honor the liberal hero by allowing her to lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda.

The story is included in Madam Speaker: Nancy Pelosi and the Lessons of Power, a forthcoming book by USA Today journalist Susan Page.

Page writes that Speaker Pelosi sought to make Ginsburg the first woman to lie in state in the Rotunda.

The website of the Architect of the Capitol says of use of the premises to honor those who have died: "No law, written rule, or regulation specifies who may lie in state; use of the U.S. Capitol Rotunda is controlled by concurrent action of the House and Senate. Any person who has rendered distinguished service to the nation may lie in state if the family so wishes and Congress approves."

But according to Page, "McConnell rejected the idea on the grounds that there was no precedent for such treatment of a justice."

Instead, Pelosi allowed Ginsburg's coffin to lie in state in Statuary Hall, located on the House side of the Capitol.

McConnell did not attend the service honoring Ginsburg, and later ignored her dying wish that her replacement be nominated by the winner of the 2020 presidential election.

McConnell rushed through Donald Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court days before the election, despite having refused even to hold a hearing for Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's nominee to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016, on the grounds that it was too close to an election to confirm the sitting president's choice.

"Mitch McConnell is not a force for good in our country," Page reports that Pelosi said. "He is an enabler of some of the worst stuff, and an instigator of some of it on his own."

Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Justice Clarence Thomas

Photo by USDAgov is marked with CC PDM 1.0

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, far-right activist Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, have quite the scheme going. She takes in dark money contributions to her Tea Party-connected nonprofit, Liberty Central, and organizes Republicans on exactly the kind of issues that often reach the Supreme Court. He sits on the Supreme Court and never recuses himself as justices are called on by federal law to do in certain situations, including ones where their spouses have financial interests.

And this is going on while Justice Stephen Breyer is solemnly warning that expanding the Supreme Court might be a problem because "Structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed" the perception that the court is guided by politics, "further eroding that trust." As if that ship had not long since sailed.

That ship sailed when then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell held open a seat on the court for nearly a year of then-President Barack Obama's term to give Republicans a chance to fill it. It sailed again when McConnell then rushed through the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett weeks before an election. And it has sailed repeatedly thanks to the actions of the Thomases.

Most recently that's come up on the issue of big tech, with Republicans feeling censored by the likes of Facebook, Twitter, and Google, despite reams of evidence that Republicans in fact receive kid-glove treatment from Facebook in particular.

Virginia Thomas has been sending out email blasts promoting a website and "influence network" about the "corporate tyranny" of big tech. Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in a case dealing with Donald Trump's habit of blocking his critics on Twitter, railing against the control "of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties" and the "glaring concern" for free speech.

On the one hand, the fundraiser and organizer raking in contributions and whipping up opposition; on the other hand, the justice proclaiming on the law.

This is not a new story. Virginia Thomas started Liberty Central in 2009 with secret donations enabled by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that same year. The very existence of those secret donations raised ethical questions, legal ethicists said at the time.

"It's shocking that you would have a Supreme Court justice sitting on a case that might implicate in a very fundamental way the interests of someone who might have contributed to his wife's organization," Deborah Rhode, director of the Stanford University Center on the Legal Profession, told The New York Times in 2010.

"The fact that we can't find that out is the first problem," she said. Not to mention, "how can the public form a judgment about propriety if it doesn't have the basic underlying facts?"

Virginia Thomas and Liberty Central also fought fiercely against the Affordable Care Act, which has of course ended up in front of the Supreme Court repeatedly. But while Supreme Court justices are supposed to recuse themselves in cases of conflict of interest, they get to decide when to do so. No one can make them, which means Clarence Thomas can be just as unethical as he likes.

So, no, Justice Breyer, expanding the court—something with lots of historical precedent—or otherwise reforming it would not be what undermined trust by creating the perception of political motivation. You have only to look around you on the court to see what's done that.