Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, Virginia “Ginni,” is causing a stir after admitting that she was present at the rally that pr...
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, Virginia “Ginni,” is causing a stir after admitting that she was present at the rally that preceded the Jan. 6 incursion at the Capitol.
In an interview with the Washington Free Beacon, Thomas wanted to clarify publicly that she did not have anything to do with the rioting and chaos that followed the “Stop the Steal” rally at the White House.
“She did not help organize the White House rally that preceded the riot at the Capitol. She did attend the rally but got cold and left early. And most importantly, in her view, her involvement with the event has no bearing on the work of her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,” the Free Beacon reported.
Thomas has a long history as a conservative activist, so it’s not a surprise that she would have been at the “Stop the Steal” rally.
She is a member of the board of the Council for National Policy, which “brings together the country’s most influential conservative leaders in business, government, politics, religion and academia to hear and learn from policy experts on a wide range of issues,” its website outlines.
Her associations and activism have opened her up to criticism about her influence on her husband, as a Supreme Court justice.
“Like so many married couples, we share many of the same ideals, principles and aspirations for America,” Thomas said.
“But we have our own separate careers, and our own ideas and opinions, too. Clarence doesn’t discuss his work with me, and I don’t involve him in my work.”
But that has not stopped media and left wing organizations from going after her and her husband.
Citizen for Ethics, a left wing watchdog group, insinuated that Ginni’s presence at the rally directly impacted her husband’s decision about investigating Jan. 6 events. There is no evidence to back up this conjecture.
Occupy Democrats tweeted that the Thomases should be investigated over all this.
Matt Wueker, a staff cartoonist and illustrator for Politico, even whipped up a cartoon of the couple.
But Thomas critiqued the media outlets that have gone after her, speculating involvement and spreading exaggerations.
“I played no role with those who were planning and leading the Jan. 6 events. There are stories in the press suggesting I paid or arranged for buses. I did not. There are other stories saying I mediated feuding factions of leaders for that day. I did not,” Thomas said.
In January, the New Yorker — more or less — led the media charge against Thomas with some broad questions about her background and affiliations and how it could influence her husband in his justice duties. The New Yorker openly insinuated that Justice Thomas’ neutrality should not be assumed since he is married to a political activist.
“The claim that the Justices’ opinions are politically neutral is becoming increasingly hard to accept, especially from Thomas, whose wife, Virginia (Ginni) Thomas, is a vocal right-wing activist. She has declared that America is in existential danger because of the ‘deep state’ and the ‘fascist left,’ which includes ‘transsexual fascists,'” the New Yorker reported.
“For the most part, it has been dismissed as the harmless action of an independent spouse. But now the Court appears likely to secure victories for her allies in a number of highly polarizing cases — on abortion, affirmative action and gun rights,” the New Yorker added.
Then in February, the New York Times Magazine hopped on the “question the Thomases” train by publishing an “investigation” into Thomas’ activities, alleging that she was one of the protest organizers on Jan. 6.
“Dustin Stockton, an organizer who worked with Women for America First, which held the permit for the Ellipse rally, said he was told that Ginni Thomas played a peacemaking role between feuding factions of rally organizers ‘so that there wouldn’t be any division around Jan. 6,’” the New York Times Magazine reported.
But based on the Free Beacon’s reporting and the sources that they talked to (many whom the Times had tried to reach out to), it is clear that the media going after Thomas did not do their due diligence and homework before they started slinging accusations. Many of the sources that the Times talked to were second hand.
Various sources, and Thomas herself, rejected claims that the Times made.
Amy Kremer of Women for America First, who according to the Times was one of the feuding factions that Thomas tried to be a peacemaker for, rejected the claims that the Times had made and condemned its reporting.
“The NYT seems to be more of an activist organization than a media outlet focused on real journalism. They certainly have no regard for the truth,” Kremer told the Free Beacon.
Seeing the bad reporting and inflated conjecturing from the Times should make everyone wary of media claims about Thomas.
Yes, Thomas is an activist. She herself has been clear about that. She runs Liberty Consulting, which she founded to build networks among like-minded D.C. professionals and activists around the whole country.
But she has also been clear in the past that her work never interferes with her husband’s work — despite the media’s accusations that Thomas must be influencing her husband.
“The legal lane is my husband’s — I never much enjoyed reading briefs and judicial opinions anyway and am quite happy to stay out of that lane,” Thomas told the Free Beacon.
“We do not discuss cases until opinions are public — and even then, our discussions have always been very general and limited to public information.”
Thomas is clearly just a target for left wing media that are not happy about conservative sway on the Supreme Court. If the media was truly concerned about keeping justices unbiased and unswayed, then they would be examining all nine justices’ families, friends, associations and anything that could remotely influence their thinking.
But that is not what is happening. The media is just targeting the wife of the most conservative justice — and doing it in the name of legal ethics and morality.
No comments