If Justice Thomas Recused Himself, Roe Might Then Be Saved

By Donald A. Collins | 3 February 2022
Church and State

(Credit: YouTube / screengrab)

Justice Clarence Thomas’ decision as to whether or not to recuse himself from the Mississippi abortion case is by law entirely up to him as no one else can keep him from voting, despite his moral obligation to withdraw from the Mississippi abortion case.

Read here about recusal.

But only the Justice can recuse himself, no other authority can do so.

However, his wife’s activism in politically opposing the pursuit of the full story of the 1/6/21 insurrection by the House January 6th Commission, apparently caused Thomas to be the sole vote of 9 to declare such a Commission illegal.

Read about that here.

Just a partial quote from this article quickly gives you the depth of Ginni Thomas’ influence:

Ginni Thomas’s name stood out among the signatories of a December letter from conservative leaders, which blasted the work of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection as “overtly partisan political persecution.”

One month later, her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, took part in a case crucial to the same committee’s work: former president Donald Trump’s request to block the committee from getting White House records that were ordered released by President Biden and two lower courts.

Thomas was the only justice to say he would grant Trump’s request.

That vote has reignited fury among Clarence Thomas’s critics, who say it illustrates a gaping hole in the court’s rules: Justices essentially decide for themselves whether they have a conflict of interest, and Thomas has rarely made such a choice in his three decades on the court.

How can the SC react to this behavior? It can’t legally as it has no power to enforce his obvious bias.

However, if Thomas did do the ethically right thing and recuse himself that would give the Chief Justice John Roberts the option to vote with the liberals in a tie vote hence allowing the decision of the 5th Circuit Court not to take the Mississippi case, hence saving Roe/Casey.

While Thomas won’t likely recuse himself, my point in articulating such a scenario is simple.

This 49 yearlong Precedent demands that in this case, the doctrine of Stare decisis be upheld. The “stench” as Justice Sotomayor argued in doing so would be an everlasting blot as was the Dred Scott decision in 1857 on the Court’s credibility.

Stare decisis offers in this case a simple secular resolution versus a divisive futile controversy which ironically might so motivate Democrats and independents to keep the non-governing GOP from winning either House in the midterms.

Since the issue of choice is so important and the potential corruption if elected in November of the disgraced of the Trump controlled GOP, I find myself in a dilemma: Which is worse, losing Roe or the frightening ascension of the GOP.

My unrealistic view of the best outcome is obviously stated here.

First, knowing that our beloved democracy has been so wounded by Trump’s influence makes me hope for a Department of Justice indictment of Trump ASAP before the midterms.

And in the off chance for an enlightened decision, I pray for the Constitutional principle involved to be upheld and NOT overturn Roe/Casey by the Court which would thus to NOT plunge our already deeply divided democracy into a netherworld of vitriolic conflict.

Should the focus of religion be to encourage love and understanding? Obviously, such broader vision is needed now.

Former US Navy officer, banker and venture capitalist, Donald A. Collins, a free lance writer living in Washington, DC, has spent over 50 years working for women’s reproductive health as a board member and/or officer of numerous family planning organizations including Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Guttmacher Institute, Family Health International and Ipas. Yale under graduate, NYU MBA. He is the author of “From the Dissident Left: A Collection of Essays 2004-2013”, “Trump Becoming Macbeth: Will our democracy survive?”, “We Humans Overwhelm Our Earth: 11 or 2 Billion by 2100?” and “What Can Be Done Now to Save Habitable Life on Planet Earth?: Leaders Commit to Reduce Human Population”.

Justice Thomas Ignores Basic Ethics Where Wife’s Activism, Lobbying Conflict With Cases

Sotomayor’s challenges to anti-abortion arguments

Why the Supreme Court may reverse Roe in Mississippi abortion ban case

How could Supreme Court conservatives change US abortion rights? – BBC News

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here