Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Without checks on the Supreme Court, there is no balance

Justice Clarence Thomas and Ginni Thomas

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife and conservative activist Virginia Thomas attend a Heritage Foundation event in October 2021.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Goldstone’s most recent book is "On Account of Race: The Supreme Court, White Supremacy, and the Ravaging of African American Voting Rights."

It was recently revealed that conservative activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, had not only participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, rally in which then-President Donald Trump urged supporters to march on, and perhaps attack, the Capitol, but also that she fully bought into the fantasy that the presidency had been stolen from Trump and even urged government leaders to attempt to overturn the election.

That, coupled with Justice Thomas being the only dissenter from the court’s decision to allow a congressional committee access to records of the event, created an outcry — largely on the left — for Thomas to recuse himself from impending Jan. 6 cases and even calls (only on the left) for his censure or impeachment.


Ginni Thomas protested that her political views were her own, that she was entitled to behave as she liked so long as she violated no laws, and that she and her husband discussed neither his cases nor her politics at home. While the first two are undoubtedly correct, the third stretches credibility. It is extremely unlikely that the Thomas dinnertime discussions were limited to the latest football news or a recent episode of “Emily in Paris.” Even if the couple did discuss political or even judicial matters, however, they likely would be no different than any number of other judges or justices.

The distinction seems to be not only that Ginni Thomas’s views are ultraradical and anti-democratic (anti-Democratic as well) but that she actively participated in an event that history will record as an attack on the system her husband has sworn to uphold. But however egregious was Mrs. Thomas’ behavior — or Justice Thomas’ — there seems to be no recourse available for what has become an imperial Supreme Court in which justices can do whatever they please, impervious to criticism and immune from restraint. Critics lament that those who framed the Constitution should never have allowed one branch of government to have so much unchecked power.

In fact, they did not … at least not intentionally.

Every school child learns that the American government is a system of “checks and balances,” although there is often insufficient attention paid to what the phrase actually means. At the Constitutional Convention, where the delegates faced many seemingly intractable differences, one principle on which virtually all of them agreed was that the new government must protect against despotism. And so, power was diffused, no one branch of government nor house of the legislature nor even one political faction able to seize power at the expense of the others. These “checks” on absolute authority would create a “balance” in which a certain degree of consensus would be required to enact laws or perform other functions with which the new government would be entrusted.

In such a system, the courts were seen to have only a limited role, and that is what the Framers attempted to ensure. Since judges would be appointed rather than elected, delegates understood the check on their power must emanate from the other branches of government rather than directly from the people. But the notion of even creating a federal judiciary was sufficiently unpopular that Article III was drawn only generally, consisting of merely six short paragraphs that were vague on how those checks would be implemented. In fact, depending on how the language was interpreted, whether any checks at all existed could seem uncertain. If, for example justices serving during “good behavior” is construed as serving for life rather than serving without mixing in politics — which might well be what the delegates meant — it would be virtually impossible to remove a judge except through impeachment, a process that was made intentionally difficult and unwieldy.

Although it is a near certainty that the Framers did not wish to exempt the judiciary from the checks they applied to the two other branches, the manner in which Article III was drafted indicates that the delegates were hoping Congress would subsequently provide the specifics. But in failing to include precise checks on judicial power and with language so ambiguous, the Framers were taking an enormous risk.

Alexander Hamilton attempted to paper over the danger in “Federalist 78” by assuring readers the judiciary would be “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.” A competing essayist, “Brutus,” was not so naïve. Of the justices, he wrote, “In their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution that can correct their errors or control their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal.”

In addition, the failure to define a code of ethics for Supreme Court justices left them to define proper conduct on their own, a strategy that anyone who has ever attempted to reform a police department, lobbying, voting rights, or myriad other activities would recognize as laughable. No justice has ever been publicly censured by his or her fellows and certainly none have been removed. It is unclear whether even Chief Justice John Roberts could compel Thomas to recuse himself, or if he would opt to make the effort. As a result, short of being the first justice ever successfully impeached — Samuel Chase was acquitted by the Senate in 1805 — Clarence Thomas is free to cast votes on cases in which he has a personal and political interest according to whatever standards he so chooses.

As a result, the public’s approval of the court, now at an all-time low, might sink even lower, but Justice Thomas can be certain that those family dinners at which neither politics nor jurisprudence is discussed will be the more harmonious for it.

Read More

IssueVoter Bill of the Month (July 2025): The Global Stakes of America’s $9 Billion Budget Cut

As Congress considers slashing nearly a decade's worth of international assistance, the ripple effects could extend far beyond Washington's balance sheets

Bill Track 50

IssueVoter Bill of the Month (July 2025): The Global Stakes of America’s $9 Billion Budget Cut

The Rescissions Act of 2025 was finally passed on July 18 and its implications will reverberate across continents. This $9 billion budget cut represents far more than fiscal housekeeping—it signals a fundamental retreat from America's role as the world's primary humanitarian superpower.

The bill represents a significant fiscal policy initiative that seeks to permanently cancel previously allocated but unspent federal budget authority - known as 'rescissions'. Introduced in the House on June 6, 2025, by Representative Steve Scalise and five Republican co-sponsors, this legislation implements budget rescissions proposed by President Trump on June 3, 2025, under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The cuts essentially codify actions taken by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) over recent months - which has been criticized for appropriating congressional authority over budgetary matters by halting spending previously approved by Congress.

Keep ReadingShow less
Image of a U.S. map noting the locations of 1000 NPR Member Station signals broadcasting across the United States

There are over 1000 NPR Member Station signals broadcasting across the United States

There’s nothing “meh” about dismantling public media

This morning we woke to our local NPR affiliate, WAMU, reporting a story about how the public media network it belongs to is on the brink of losing funding, per a party-line vote in the U.S. Senate last night.

The public media portion of the claw-back is 1.1 billion – the amount Congress previously approved to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes funds to NPR, PBS and over 1500 local radio and TV stations that serve communities around the U.S. The deadline for the House to seal the deal is tomorrow – July 18.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people holding hands, comforting each other.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline fields up to 3,000 calls and messages a day from all over the country.

Getty Images, Tempura

Trump Funding Cuts Endanger Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Survivors

The Trump administration’s funding cuts and new rules for grants are threatening critical programs from food and housing to medical research, parks, and much more. Among them are programs proven to prevent and reduce violence as well as initiatives that assist survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and other acts of violence.

Although the administration claims to care about violence—citing concerns about “rapists,” for example, in justifying policies that target immigrants and transgender individuals—its actions in fact increase the risk of violence and jeopardize survivors’ safety and ability to move forward. The administration’s harsh approach aligns with Project 2025’s failure to support critical social services, which can be a lifeline for victims of sexual violence or domestic abuse.

Keep ReadingShow less
Did Putin Play Trump?

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during the New Ideas For New Times Forum at the Russia National Center, July 3, 2025, in Moscow, Russia.

(Photo by Contributor/Getty Images)

Did Putin Play Trump?

President Donald Trump issued a warning to Russia this week. He demanded that Russian leader Vladimir Putin end the Ukraine war in 50 days, or else. But does anyone care?

“Putin played Trump” has resurfaced with renewed intensity as political analysts, former aides, and media commentators dissect the evolving dynamic between the two leaders. What was once a murmur has become a chorus, with even conservative voices acknowledging that Trump may have misjudged the Russian president’s intentions.

Keep ReadingShow less