Amid controversy surrounding Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s personal ties to the January 6 attack on the Capitol, new polling finds that the vast majority of likely voters support implementing a stronger code of ethics for the High Court.
When asked whether or not they agreed that Supreme Court justices should be subject to a code of ethics requiring them to recuse themselves from any case relating to personal financial or family matters, 81 percent of 1,177 respondents agreed, new polling by Data for Progress finds. Only 10 percent of respondents were opposed to the proposal, giving the supporters a 71-point margin.
Support held strong across political affiliations. Democrats were the most supportive of the code of ethics, with 84 percent in favor. An overwhelming majority of independents and Republicans also agreed with the idea, with 82 percent and 77 percent of respondents saying as such, respectively.
The polling comes as Democratic and progressive lawmakers and government watchdog groups are calling for Thomas to recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election and Donald Trump’s coup attempt on January 6th, 2021. Last month, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) called for Thomas to recuse himself from such cases and to disclose his family’s income gathered from far right organizations — or, better yet, to resign, she said.
These calls were sparked by recent revelations that Thomas’s wife, conservative activist Ginni Thomas, was deeply involved in efforts to keep Trump in the White House after the former president’s loss to Joe Biden. In leaked texts between Ginni Thomas and Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, she appeared to be using her close ties with federal officials in order to push them to overturn the election results.
Thomas’s financial ties to the right wing have also come into question. In 2011, government watchdog group Common Cause discovered that Clarence Thomas had failed to report that, over the course of 2003 to 2007, Ginni Thomas had received $680,000 from the Koch-funded Heritage Foundation. Clarence Thomas later amended his financial statements to reflect that information.
The existing code of conduct for members of the Supreme Court requires justices to recuse themselves from cases that may relate to their personal finances, but doesn’t specifically bar them from cases that they have personal ties to, outside of financial issues.
Legal ethics experts say that Thomas’s personal ties make enough of a case for him to recuse himself from all 2020 election-related cases. Voters agree with this; polling from earlier this month found that 53 percent of voters think that Thomas shouldn’t participate in cases involving his wife. The same poll, by Politico/Morning Consult, found that only 28 percent of Americans approve of Thomas.
The issue with Thomas’s participation in 2020 election-related cases is not only the rulings themselves, experts say, but also that it may shake the public’s trust in the Court overall.
The public view of the Supreme Court in general has been eroding as conservatives have manipulated the Court in their favor. A poll last year found that less than 50 percent of Americans approve of the Supreme Court’s performance, the lowest approval rating in five years.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.