>> The congressional committee
investigating January 6 has been
pouring through thousands of
communications around the
attack.
It is messages between president
trump chief of staff --
president trump's chief of staff
and ginni Thomas that have
raised questions.
>> The text messages between
them and ginni Thomas's
outspokenness about overturning
the election have led to people
calling Ford judge Thomas to
recuse himself from anything
regarding the election.
To discuss all of this, Gabe
Roth.
He is the executive director of
fix the court.
Gentlemen, thank you to you both
and welcome to the newshour.
In January, before these text
messages were publicly known,
the supreme court blocked Donald
Trump's bid to keep the January
6 investigative commission from
getting documents from the
national archives.
Justice Thomas was the only
dissenter in this case.
Do you think he should have
recused himself?
>> Related to the 2020 election
and the efforts to overturn it,
he should recuse from those
future cases and he should have
recused from the case that went
to the supreme court back in
January.
It says a justice shall recuse
when his impartiality may be
reasonably questioned and a
reasonable person may believe
that Clarence and Jenny spoke
about what her efforts were in
terms of trying to overturn the
election but they also say that
justices should recuse.
The term interest is kind of
broad.
I think for those reasons and
the fact that this is a
reasonable person standard, I
think he should step aside and
that would stop impugning the
integrity of the supreme court.
>> I can put the disagree with
that.
Ginni Thomas is not a lawyer, a
litigant, she does not work with
any organization that does this.
While her messages may have been
unwise and hyperbolic, there was
no reason to question the
impartiality of justice Thomas
or any other member of the
court.
This is part of an ongoing
effort to try to intimidate
conservative judges and a long
time ever to denigrate justice
Thomas.
She has no personal interest at
all that could be affected by
the outcome of any litigation
related to the election or
January 6.
She may have wanted Donald Trump
to win the election or for a
legal challenge to succeed but
she is not involved in any of
that.
>> A little more than half of
those questioned said they
believe justice Thomas should
not participate in election
related cases.
>> If John Malcolm does decide
to participate in these sorts of
cases, do you think he should
explain why?
>> If he does recuse, it will be
obvious why.
He usually is.
It is because they have a family
member who has a personal or
financial stake in the case.
Justices don't typically state
why they don't recuse.
It is obviously because they
believe that their impartiality
can't be questioned.
If she does not get her
constitutional rights from her
husband and certainly she does
not dictate how he should decide
legal questions or what legal
theories should employ.
>> There is no effort to
intimidate conservative
justices.
There are basic methods
standards that all federal
judges and even the supreme
court should be following.
In this case, justice Thomas is
not following those standards.
I would argue that justice Kagan
did not follow those standards
when she did not refuse from the
Obamacare cases a decade ago and
I would argue that justice
Breyer, justice Alito and
justice Roberts should have done
that and they are not following
those ethics -- those ethics
standards.
There is no effort to try to
intimidate anyone.
It is just groups like mine are
trying to say there are basic
ethics standards that every
judge in the country should
follow and the supreme court
which has exempted itself from
even having a basic ethics code
-- no justice is above the law.
This is not the first time that
ginni Thomas possible political
activism has raised these
questions.
Earlier this week, dusters Amy
coney Barrett was asked about
spells activity at the Reagan
library.
>> We are living at a time we
have a lot of couples where both
are working.
I think that the court and
society has to adjust to respect
that.
>> Do you think there should be
court guidelines on what spouses
should and should not do?
>> I don't think most of the
spouses would be very happy
about those guidelines.
When I try to give my husband
guidelines about what to do and
what not to do in the house,
that does not go over very well.
>> Should code of conduct be
more explicit?
>> When a spouse has an interest
that could be impacted by the
outcome of a case, the judge is
supposed to recuse.
She sent messages saying that
she was lobbying her husband or
at her husband speak to
litigants, this would be a
totally different story.
But that is not the case.
Correct the question -- I know
your group has proposed a code
of ethics.
>> With ginni Thomas, it has
been part of practice.
I think a lot of people are
tired of that activism and are
concerned it could be bleeding
into the conversation that she
has with her husband.
I think overall, the issue here
is if you are a member of the
public and the supreme court is
going to have this power,
congress can't do anything,
congress and the executive are
always fighting.
The supreme court has become the
least countable part of our
government, we want basic
guidelines that every justice
follows so that we have
expectations and this is
something that was introduced
today in congress and the house
and the senate, saying this is
what a code of conduct should
be.
This is what refusal loss should
be in the 21st century.
We should not have this we are
judges, we are philosopher kings
of our age and you should just
trust us, we are above the law
and above suspicion, that is not
the case as a healthy and modern
democracy, you want judges and
justices to follow modern and
very basic rules of the road
when it comes to ethics and
recusal.
Quick thank you both very much.
-- >> Thank you both very much.