Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gather going after Virginia Thomas is the left's new means of trying to create another Supreme Court vacancy. It's all so transparent.

Anonymous wrote:I gather going after Virginia Thomas is the left's new means of trying to create another Supreme Court vacancy. It's all so transparent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gather going after Virginia Thomas is the left's new means of trying to create another Supreme Court vacancy. It's all so transparent.

Surprise, surprise. AOC now calling for Clarence Thomas to either resign or be impeached: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/600145-ocasio-cortez-to-clarence-thomas-resign-or-face-impeachment

Who could have seen that coming? Oh, wait, me. I did. Doubt all you want haters.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (let’s not try to be precious and pretend that they keep their money totally separate)? Do you know how many cases he should have recused from? Should recuse from going forward? He needs to resign. Not like Roberts gets what a partisan joke he presides over.

Hang on, you think that the mere fact that his wife was paid by Heritage is enough to mean he should have recused from cases? Failure to disclose is a problem, for sure. But think about what that would mean. Many justices have spouses who gain income from law firms who represent clients with interests before the court. Should they all recuse? What if somebody's spouse received money to speak at an ACLU event? A Planned Parenthood event? Recusal required?

Yes, they should.

I serve on a DC board and recuse where there is anything close to an appearance of impropriety, Certainly a SCOTUS judge should at least do that much.

So I’m a Supreme Court justice and my spouse speaks at an ACLU sponsored event about Freedom of the Press and collects an honorarium. A year later, I rule on a case about freedom of religion and ACLU is not a party or amici. I should recuse (even if I cannot be replaced on a panel)?

She didn’t give a speech at an event. She worked for the Heritage Foundation while they were advocating that corporations are people, against equal pay laws, and other right wing causes that were heading for the Supreme Court.

Do you know what the payment was for?
Is receiving payment from an organization that advocates for “causes that are heading for the Supreme Court” per se disqualifying for the spouse of that person for cases that implicate that cause?

Go back to the beginning of this thread. It was covered in the original New Yorker article. She earned hundreds of thousands of dollars from them in the mid 2000’s. Clarence has to submit a financial statement that is subject to perjury charges if he lies. He completely left this income off three years in a row but was later allowed to revise it. After he was caught. This action is what people should be up in arms about. Lying, stealing and cheating are moral turpitude and disqualifying to a judge.

I mean, I’m also up in arms about the fact that his wife was actively trying to overthrow the government and we have no proof that Clarence Thomas wasn’t involved.

PP and I agree with you. I was trying to boil it down to HIS actual wrong doing, since the GOP want to color this as her "freedom of speech." He should have been told to retire in 2007 when the perjury on his financial statement was caught. I have little doubt he's up to overthrowing the government. May these two never have another night's peace.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gather going after Virginia Thomas is the left's new means of trying to create another Supreme Court vacancy. It's all so transparent.

Surprise, surprise. AOC now calling for Clarence Thomas to either resign or be impeached: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/600145-ocasio-cortez-to-clarence-thomas-resign-or-face-impeachment

Who could have seen that coming? Oh, wait, me. I did. Doubt all you want haters.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (let’s not try to be precious and pretend that they keep their money totally separate)? Do you know how many cases he should have recused from? Should recuse from going forward? He needs to resign. Not like Roberts gets what a partisan joke he presides over.

Hang on, you think that the mere fact that his wife was paid by Heritage is enough to mean he should have recused from cases? Failure to disclose is a problem, for sure. But think about what that would mean. Many justices have spouses who gain income from law firms who represent clients with interests before the court. Should they all recuse? What if somebody's spouse received money to speak at an ACLU event? A Planned Parenthood event? Recusal required?

Yes, they should.

I serve on a DC board and recuse where there is anything close to an appearance of impropriety, Certainly a SCOTUS judge should at least do that much.

So I’m a Supreme Court justice and my spouse speaks at an ACLU sponsored event about Freedom of the Press and collects an honorarium. A year later, I rule on a case about freedom of religion and ACLU is not a party or amici. I should recuse (even if I cannot be replaced on a panel)?

She didn’t give a speech at an event. She worked for the Heritage Foundation while they were advocating that corporations are people, against equal pay laws, and other right wing causes that were heading for the Supreme Court.

Do you know what the payment was for?
Is receiving payment from an organization that advocates for “causes that are heading for the Supreme Court” per se disqualifying for the spouse of that person for cases that implicate that cause?

Go back to the beginning of this thread. It was covered in the original New Yorker article. She earned hundreds of thousands of dollars from them in the mid 2000’s. Clarence has to submit a financial statement that is subject to perjury charges if he lies. He completely left this income off three years in a row but was later allowed to revise it. After he was caught. This action is what people should be up in arms about. Lying, stealing and cheating are moral turpitude and disqualifying to a judge.

I mean, I’m also up in arms about the fact that his wife was actively trying to overthrow the government and we have no proof that Clarence Thomas wasn’t involved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gather going after Virginia Thomas is the left's new means of trying to create another Supreme Court vacancy. It's all so transparent.

Surprise, surprise. AOC now calling for Clarence Thomas to either resign or be impeached: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/600145-ocasio-cortez-to-clarence-thomas-resign-or-face-impeachment

Who could have seen that coming? Oh, wait, me. I did. Doubt all you want haters.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (let’s not try to be precious and pretend that they keep their money totally separate)? Do you know how many cases he should have recused from? Should recuse from going forward? He needs to resign. Not like Roberts gets what a partisan joke he presides over.

Hang on, you think that the mere fact that his wife was paid by Heritage is enough to mean he should have recused from cases? Failure to disclose is a problem, for sure. But think about what that would mean. Many justices have spouses who gain income from law firms who represent clients with interests before the court. Should they all recuse? What if somebody's spouse received money to speak at an ACLU event? A Planned Parenthood event? Recusal required?

Yes, they should.

I serve on a DC board and recuse where there is anything close to an appearance of impropriety, Certainly a SCOTUS judge should at least do that much.

So I’m a Supreme Court justice and my spouse speaks at an ACLU sponsored event about Freedom of the Press and collects an honorarium. A year later, I rule on a case about freedom of religion and ACLU is not a party or amici. I should recuse (even if I cannot be replaced on a panel)?

She didn’t give a speech at an event. She worked for the Heritage Foundation while they were advocating that corporations are people, against equal pay laws, and other right wing causes that were heading for the Supreme Court.

Do you know what the payment was for?
Is receiving payment from an organization that advocates for “causes that are heading for the Supreme Court” per se disqualifying for the spouse of that person for cases that implicate that cause?

Go back to the beginning of this thread. It was covered in the original New Yorker article. She earned hundreds of thousands of dollars from them in the mid 2000’s. Clarence has to submit a financial statement that is subject to perjury charges if he lies. He completely left this income off three years in a row but was later allowed to revise it. After he was caught. This action is what people should be up in arms about. Lying, stealing and cheating are moral turpitude and disqualifying to a judge.

I mean, I’m also up in arms about the fact that his wife was actively trying to overthrow the government and we have no proof that Clarence Thomas wasn’t involved.

We have no proof that you haven’t cheated on you’re spouse. See how that works?

You have to prove that he was involved, not the other way around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gather going after Virginia Thomas is the left's new means of trying to create another Supreme Court vacancy. It's all so transparent.

Surprise, surprise. AOC now calling for Clarence Thomas to either resign or be impeached: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/600145-ocasio-cortez-to-clarence-thomas-resign-or-face-impeachment

Who could have seen that coming? Oh, wait, me. I did. Doubt all you want haters.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (let’s not try to be precious and pretend that they keep their money totally separate)? Do you know how many cases he should have recused from? Should recuse from going forward? He needs to resign. Not like Roberts gets what a partisan joke he presides over.

Hang on, you think that the mere fact that his wife was paid by Heritage is enough to mean he should have recused from cases? Failure to disclose is a problem, for sure. But think about what that would mean. Many justices have spouses who gain income from law firms who represent clients with interests before the court. Should they all recuse? What if somebody's spouse received money to speak at an ACLU event? A Planned Parenthood event? Recusal required?

Yes, they should.

I serve on a DC board and recuse where there is anything close to an appearance of impropriety, Certainly a SCOTUS judge should at least do that much.

So I’m a Supreme Court justice and my spouse speaks at an ACLU sponsored event about Freedom of the Press and collects an honorarium. A year later, I rule on a case about freedom of religion and ACLU is not a party or amici. I should recuse (even if I cannot be replaced on a panel)?

She didn’t give a speech at an event. She worked for the Heritage Foundation while they were advocating that corporations are people, against equal pay laws, and other right wing causes that were heading for the Supreme Court.

Do you know what the payment was for?
Is receiving payment from an organization that advocates for “causes that are heading for the Supreme Court” per se disqualifying for the spouse of that person for cases that implicate that cause?

Go back to the beginning of this thread. It was covered in the original New Yorker article. She earned hundreds of thousands of dollars from them in the mid 2000’s. Clarence has to submit a financial statement that is subject to perjury charges if he lies. He completely left this income off three years in a row but was later allowed to revise it. After he was caught. This action is what people should be up in arms about. Lying, stealing and cheating are moral turpitude and disqualifying to a judge.

I mean, I’m also up in arms about the fact that his wife was actively trying to overthrow the government and we have no proof that Clarence Thomas wasn’t involved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gather going after Virginia Thomas is the left's new means of trying to create another Supreme Court vacancy. It's all so transparent.

Surprise, surprise. AOC now calling for Clarence Thomas to either resign or be impeached: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/600145-ocasio-cortez-to-clarence-thomas-resign-or-face-impeachment

Who could have seen that coming? Oh, wait, me. I did. Doubt all you want haters.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (let’s not try to be precious and pretend that they keep their money totally separate)? Do you know how many cases he should have recused from? Should recuse from going forward? He needs to resign. Not like Roberts gets what a partisan joke he presides over.

Hang on, you think that the mere fact that his wife was paid by Heritage is enough to mean he should have recused from cases? Failure to disclose is a problem, for sure. But think about what that would mean. Many justices have spouses who gain income from law firms who represent clients with interests before the court. Should they all recuse? What if somebody's spouse received money to speak at an ACLU event? A Planned Parenthood event? Recusal required?

Yes, they should.

I serve on a DC board and recuse where there is anything close to an appearance of impropriety, Certainly a SCOTUS judge should at least do that much.

So I’m a Supreme Court justice and my spouse speaks at an ACLU sponsored event about Freedom of the Press and collects an honorarium. A year later, I rule on a case about freedom of religion and ACLU is not a party or amici. I should recuse (even if I cannot be replaced on a panel)?

She didn’t give a speech at an event. She worked for the Heritage Foundation while they were advocating that corporations are people, against equal pay laws, and other right wing causes that were heading for the Supreme Court.

Do you know what the payment was for?
Is receiving payment from an organization that advocates for “causes that are heading for the Supreme Court” per se disqualifying for the spouse of that person for cases that implicate that cause?

Go back to the beginning of this thread. It was covered in the original New Yorker article. She earned hundreds of thousands of dollars from them in the mid 2000’s. Clarence has to submit a financial statement that is subject to perjury charges if he lies. He completely left this income off three years in a row but was later allowed to revise it. After he was caught. This action is what people should be up in arms about. Lying, stealing and cheating are moral turpitude and disqualifying to a judge.

I mean, I’m also up in arms about the fact that his wife was actively trying to overthrow the government and we have no proof that Clarence Thomas wasn’t involved.

He needs to resign and/or go to jail on no proof for sure!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gather going after Virginia Thomas is the left's new means of trying to create another Supreme Court vacancy. It's all so transparent.

Surprise, surprise. AOC now calling for Clarence Thomas to either resign or be impeached: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/600145-ocasio-cortez-to-clarence-thomas-resign-or-face-impeachment

Who could have seen that coming? Oh, wait, me. I did. Doubt all you want haters.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (let’s not try to be precious and pretend that they keep their money totally separate)? Do you know how many cases he should have recused from? Should recuse from going forward? He needs to resign. Not like Roberts gets what a partisan joke he presides over.

Hang on, you think that the mere fact that his wife was paid by Heritage is enough to mean he should have recused from cases? Failure to disclose is a problem, for sure. But think about what that would mean. Many justices have spouses who gain income from law firms who represent clients with interests before the court. Should they all recuse? What if somebody's spouse received money to speak at an ACLU event? A Planned Parenthood event? Recusal required?

Yes, they should.

I serve on a DC board and recuse where there is anything close to an appearance of impropriety, Certainly a SCOTUS judge should at least do that much.

So I’m a Supreme Court justice and my spouse speaks at an ACLU sponsored event about Freedom of the Press and collects an honorarium. A year later, I rule on a case about freedom of religion and ACLU is not a party or amici. I should recuse (even if I cannot be replaced on a panel)?

She didn’t give a speech at an event. She worked for the Heritage Foundation while they were advocating that corporations are people, against equal pay laws, and other right wing causes that were heading for the Supreme Court.

Do you know what the payment was for?
Is receiving payment from an organization that advocates for “causes that are heading for the Supreme Court” per se disqualifying for the spouse of that person for cases that implicate that cause?

Go back to the beginning of this thread. It was covered in the original New Yorker article. She earned hundreds of thousands of dollars from them in the mid 2000’s. Clarence has to submit a financial statement that is subject to perjury charges if he lies. He completely left this income off three years in a row but was later allowed to revise it. After he was caught. This action is what people should be up in arms about. Lying, stealing and cheating are moral turpitude and disqualifying to a judge.

I mean, I’m also up in arms about the fact that his wife was actively trying to overthrow the government and we have no proof that Clarence Thomas wasn’t involved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gather going after Virginia Thomas is the left's new means of trying to create another Supreme Court vacancy. It's all so transparent.

Surprise, surprise. AOC now calling for Clarence Thomas to either resign or be impeached: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/600145-ocasio-cortez-to-clarence-thomas-resign-or-face-impeachment

Who could have seen that coming? Oh, wait, me. I did. Doubt all you want haters.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (let’s not try to be precious and pretend that they keep their money totally separate)? Do you know how many cases he should have recused from? Should recuse from going forward? He needs to resign. Not like Roberts gets what a partisan joke he presides over.

Hang on, you think that the mere fact that his wife was paid by Heritage is enough to mean he should have recused from cases? Failure to disclose is a problem, for sure. But think about what that would mean. Many justices have spouses who gain income from law firms who represent clients with interests before the court. Should they all recuse? What if somebody's spouse received money to speak at an ACLU event? A Planned Parenthood event? Recusal required?

Yes, they should.

I serve on a DC board and recuse where there is anything close to an appearance of impropriety, Certainly a SCOTUS judge should at least do that much.

So I’m a Supreme Court justice and my spouse speaks at an ACLU sponsored event about Freedom of the Press and collects an honorarium. A year later, I rule on a case about freedom of religion and ACLU is not a party or amici. I should recuse (even if I cannot be replaced on a panel)?

She didn’t give a speech at an event. She worked for the Heritage Foundation while they were advocating that corporations are people, against equal pay laws, and other right wing causes that were heading for the Supreme Court.

Do you know what the payment was for?
Is receiving payment from an organization that advocates for “causes that are heading for the Supreme Court” per se disqualifying for the spouse of that person for cases that implicate that cause?

Not PP but yes, I think it does. And Justice Roberts’s wife seems to agree since she didn’t want to work at any law firm that might have cases before the court. If Ginni Thomas is getting paid by an organization with business in front of the court, then Clarence Thomas’s personal finances are affected and he should recuse himself from cases involving that organization. Let alone when her personal communications are being subpoenaed. People are making this harder than it is.

+1

Her actions are unprecedented as a SCOTUS spouse.

Listen to the podcast shared earlier. Great background info.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gather going after Virginia Thomas is the left's new means of trying to create another Supreme Court vacancy. It's all so transparent.

Surprise, surprise. AOC now calling for Clarence Thomas to either resign or be impeached: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/600145-ocasio-cortez-to-clarence-thomas-resign-or-face-impeachment

Who could have seen that coming? Oh, wait, me. I did. Doubt all you want haters.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (let’s not try to be precious and pretend that they keep their money totally separate)? Do you know how many cases he should have recused from? Should recuse from going forward? He needs to resign. Not like Roberts gets what a partisan joke he presides over.

Hang on, you think that the mere fact that his wife was paid by Heritage is enough to mean he should have recused from cases? Failure to disclose is a problem, for sure. But think about what that would mean. Many justices have spouses who gain income from law firms who represent clients with interests before the court. Should they all recuse? What if somebody's spouse received money to speak at an ACLU event? A Planned Parenthood event? Recusal required?

Yes, they should.

I serve on a DC board and recuse where there is anything close to an appearance of impropriety, Certainly a SCOTUS judge should at least do that much.

So I’m a Supreme Court justice and my spouse speaks at an ACLU sponsored event about Freedom of the Press and collects an honorarium. A year later, I rule on a case about freedom of religion and ACLU is not a party or amici. I should recuse (even if I cannot be replaced on a panel)?

She didn’t give a speech at an event. She worked for the Heritage Foundation while they were advocating that corporations are people, against equal pay laws, and other right wing causes that were heading for the Supreme Court.

Do you know what the payment was for?
Is receiving payment from an organization that advocates for “causes that are heading for the Supreme Court” per se disqualifying for the spouse of that person for cases that implicate that cause?

Go back to the beginning of this thread. It was covered in the original New Yorker article. She earned hundreds of thousands of dollars from them in the mid 2000’s. Clarence has to submit a financial statement that is subject to perjury charges if he lies. He completely left this income off three years in a row but was later allowed to revise it. After he was caught. This action is what people should be up in arms about. Lying, stealing and cheating are moral turpitude and disqualifying to a judge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gather going after Virginia Thomas is the left's new means of trying to create another Supreme Court vacancy. It's all so transparent.

Surprise, surprise. AOC now calling for Clarence Thomas to either resign or be impeached: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/600145-ocasio-cortez-to-clarence-thomas-resign-or-face-impeachment

Who could have seen that coming? Oh, wait, me. I did. Doubt all you want haters.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (let’s not try to be precious and pretend that they keep their money totally separate)? Do you know how many cases he should have recused from? Should recuse from going forward? He needs to resign. Not like Roberts gets what a partisan joke he presides over.

Hang on, you think that the mere fact that his wife was paid by Heritage is enough to mean he should have recused from cases? Failure to disclose is a problem, for sure. But think about what that would mean. Many justices have spouses who gain income from law firms who represent clients with interests before the court. Should they all recuse? What if somebody's spouse received money to speak at an ACLU event? A Planned Parenthood event? Recusal required?

Yes, they should.

I serve on a DC board and recuse where there is anything close to an appearance of impropriety, Certainly a SCOTUS judge should at least do that much.

So I’m a Supreme Court justice and my spouse speaks at an ACLU sponsored event about Freedom of the Press and collects an honorarium. A year later, I rule on a case about freedom of religion and ACLU is not a party or amici. I should recuse (even if I cannot be replaced on a panel)?

She didn’t give a speech at an event. She worked for the Heritage Foundation while they were advocating that corporations are people, against equal pay laws, and other right wing causes that were heading for the Supreme Court.

Do you know what the payment was for?
Is receiving payment from an organization that advocates for “causes that are heading for the Supreme Court” per se disqualifying for the spouse of that person for cases that implicate that cause?

Anonymous wrote:We need to see judge Thomas’s emails and texts. All of them. He needs to prove he is a loyal American.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gather going after Virginia Thomas is the left's new means of trying to create another Supreme Court vacancy. It's all so transparent.

Surprise, surprise. AOC now calling for Clarence Thomas to either resign or be impeached: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/600145-ocasio-cortez-to-clarence-thomas-resign-or-face-impeachment

Who could have seen that coming? Oh, wait, me. I did. Doubt all you want haters.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (let’s not try to be precious and pretend that they keep their money totally separate)? Do you know how many cases he should have recused from? Should recuse from going forward? He needs to resign. Not like Roberts gets what a partisan joke he presides over.

Hang on, you think that the mere fact that his wife was paid by Heritage is enough to mean he should have recused from cases? Failure to disclose is a problem, for sure. But think about what that would mean. Many justices have spouses who gain income from law firms who represent clients with interests before the court. Should they all recuse? What if somebody's spouse received money to speak at an ACLU event? A Planned Parenthood event? Recusal required?

Yes, they should.

I serve on a DC board and recuse where there is anything close to an appearance of impropriety, Certainly a SCOTUS judge should at least do that much.

So I’m a Supreme Court justice and my spouse speaks at an ACLU sponsored event about Freedom of the Press and collects an honorarium. A year later, I rule on a case about freedom of religion and ACLU is not a party or amici. I should recuse (even if I cannot be replaced on a panel)?

She didn’t give a speech at an event. She worked for the Heritage Foundation while they were advocating that corporations are people, against equal pay laws, and other right wing causes that were heading for the Supreme Court.

Do you know what the payment was for?
Is receiving payment from an organization that advocates for “causes that are heading for the Supreme Court” per se disqualifying for the spouse of that person for cases that implicate that cause?

Not PP but yes, I think it does. And Justice Roberts’s wife seems to agree since she didn’t want to work at any law firm that might have cases before the court. If Ginni Thomas is getting paid by an organization with business in front of the court, then Clarence Thomas’s personal finances are affected and he should recuse himself from cases involving that organization. Let alone when her personal communications are being subpoenaed. People are making this harder than it is.