• Home
  • Independent Voter News
  • Quizzes
  • Election Dissection
  • Sections
  • Events
  • Directory
  • About Us
  • Glossary
  • Opinion
  • Campaign Finance
  • Redistricting
  • Civic Ed
  • Voting
  • Fact Check
  • News
  • Analysis
  • Subscriptions
  • Log in
Leveraging Our Differences
  • news & opinion
    • Big Picture
      • Civic Ed
      • Ethics
      • Leadership
      • Leveraging big ideas
      • Media
    • Business & Democracy
      • Corporate Responsibility
      • Impact Investment
      • Innovation & Incubation
      • Small Businesses
      • Stakeholder Capitalism
    • Elections
      • Campaign Finance
      • Independent Voter News
      • Redistricting
      • Voting
    • Government
      • Balance of Power
      • Budgeting
      • Congress
      • Judicial
      • Local
      • State
      • White House
    • Justice
      • Accountability
      • Anti-corruption
      • Budget equity
    • Columns
      • Beyond Right and Left
      • Civic Soul
      • Congress at a Crossroads
      • Cross-Partisan Visions
      • Democracy Pie
      • Our Freedom
  • Pop Culture
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
  • events
  • About
      • Mission
      • Advisory Board
      • Staff
      • Contact Us
Sign Up
  1. Home>
  2. supreme court>

Without checks on the Supreme Court, there is no balance

Lawrence Goldstone
April 04, 2022
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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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.

From Your Site Articles
  • Supreme Court won't extend judicial review to the states - The Fulcrum ›
  • It's time to end life tenure at the Supreme Court - The Fulcrum ›
  • The Supreme Court is broken and needs to be reformed - The Fulcrum ›
  • The Supreme Court is undemocratic - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
  • Texts reveal wife of Supreme Court judge urged 2020 election ... ›
  • The Long Crusade of Clarence and Ginni Thomas - The New York ... ›
  • Virginia Thomas urged White House chief to pursue unrelenting ... ›
  • Is Ginni Thomas a Threat to the Supreme Court? | The New Yorker ›
supreme court

Join an Upcoming Event

We’re Less Divided Than We Think

Common Ground Committee
May 27, 2022 at 12:00 am CDT
Read More

Join, Design & Build the EMPATHY MOVEMENT

Center for Building a Culture of Empathy
May 28, 2022 at 10:00 am
Read More

Film Discussion: National Film Discussion of “Dialogue Lab: America”

Braver Angels
May 31, 2022 at 8:00 pm EDT
Read More

How to Pass a Federal Privacy Law: Exploring Areas for a Consensus and a Path Forward

R Street
Jun 01, 2022 at 12:00 pm EDT
Read More

Unify Challenge

Unify America
Jun 01, 2022 at 1:00 pm
Read More

STAR Voting California Monthly Meeting

Equal Vote
Jun 01, 2022 at 6:00 pm
Read More
View All Events
Get some Leverage Sign up for The Fulcrum Newsletter
Follow
Contributors

We are not helpless

Eric Liu

Why gun control laws don’t pass Congress, despite public support and repeated outrage over mass shootings

Monika L. McDermott
David R. Jones

Courting theocracy

Lawrence Goldstone

But what can I do?

Pedro Silva

Are large donor networks still needed to win in a fairer election system?

Paige Chan

Independent voters want to be heard. Is anybody listening?

David Thornburgh
John Opdycke
latest News

Wedge issue focus: Guns in America

Our Staff
12h

After mass shootings like Uvalde, national gun control fails – but states often loosen gun laws

Christopher Poliquin
13h

Ask Joe: Talking to people who believe voting has become pointless

Joe Weston
14h

Podcast: Broken news

Our Staff
14h

Biden follows Trump’s lead in expanding use of executive orders

Reya Kumar
27 May

Podcast: 100% Democracy

Our Staff
26 May
Videos

Video: Helping loved ones divided by politics

Our Staff

Video: What happened in Virginia?

Our Staff

Video: Infrastructure past, present, and future

Our Staff

Video: Beyond the headlines SCOTUS 2021 - 2022

Our Staff

Video: Should we even have a debt limit

Our Staff

Video: #ListenFirstFriday Yap Politics

Our Staff
Podcasts

Podcast: Did economists move the Democrats to the right?

Our Staff
02 May

Podcast: The future of depolarization

Our Staff
11 February

Podcast: Sore losers are bad for democracy

Our Staff
20 January

Deconstructed Podcast from IVN

Our Staff
08 November 2021
Recommended
Come and Take It flag

We are not helpless

Leveraging big ideas

Wedge issue focus: Guns in America

Family grieves in Uvalde, Texas

After mass shootings like Uvalde, national gun control fails – but states often loosen gun laws

State
Uvalde newspaper

Why gun control laws don’t pass Congress, despite public support and repeated outrage over mass shootings

Congress
Ask Joe: Talking to people who believe voting has become pointless

Ask Joe: Talking to people who believe voting has become pointless

Ask Joe
Podcast: Broken news

Podcast: Broken news

Media