Ahead of Voting Battles the Call for SCOTUS Recusals Always Seem Directed in One Direction

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

 

Funny how only one type of justice is ever deemed disqualifying.

With mounting stories of voting irregularities in numerous states, and the Trump campaign more than willing to litigate the various issues seen, it is becoming more likely that there will be some involvement in the near future with the Supreme Court. This was specifically why there had been pundits over the past couple of months who have been dictating what the actions of justices need to be, in their not-so-humble estimations.

The voting upheaval we are currently experiencing is exactly what many on both sides predicted, with one nuanced difference; those on the right recognized the fiasco and subterfuge that was impending, and those on the left actively wanted specifically that to take place. Look at how we have endured weeks of states working to skirt their own election laws for the benefit of mail-in voting. It is telling that laws long established can be so easily waved off once they are brought to a compliant court, and it is this ruling from the bench that the left and the media had been looking at in the past months.

With the anticipated legal snarl this election promised it was with collective GASPs that the left reacted to the passing of SCOTUS fixture Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Suddenly they realized that Trump had the constitutional authority to appoint a replacement, one who would not only break any tie but likely take his side in a legal decision. This following of governmental structures is considered ‘’unfair’’, and so the initial reaction from the outraged was expected — Amy Coney Barrett must recuse herself from any possible voting rulings!

Beyond even that desperation, in the Washington Post recently they had also declared another justice should step away from any voting dispute. Colbert King, in a piece on the op-ed pages, stipulates that Clarence Thomas has grounds to remove himself from any impending rulings. The reason? Thomas and Joe Biden have something of a contentious past.

By any measure, Thomas’s confirmation hearing was one of the most acrimonious and polarizing congressional events of the 20th century. Thomas wrote in his memoir “My Grandfather’s Son” that he looks back at the process in “horror and disgust.” 

King also notes a significant detail in that contentious confirmation process. ‘’The chairman of that committee was Biden, whom Thomas characterizes in his book as a liar.’’ It is for this reason that Thomas is commanded to step down. Most who witnessed those hearings also felt horror and disgust over the way Thomas was treated, and Biden’s behavior and contortion of the truth was rather evident. But tellingly King only sees a problem with one of the parties.

We rarely see these same news sources who declare when a leftist justice must recuse themselves from a decision. Any Trump nominee has had to face questions regarding Roe V. Wade decisions, attempting to corner the individual and disqualify them based on prejudicial opinions. Never would these same voices dare suggest a pro-choice liberal judge step away for reasons of bias.

But look at the Thomas call for recusal and note that there is no introspection in the other direction. A senator who was acting in an unpleasant fashion in front of the cameras is not called out as he ascends to higher office. There is no chance of Clarence Thomas vacating his chair if a crucial election decision comes to their court. But if the standard of his supposed disqualifying factors is a contentious hearing with Joe Biden, then apply the same standard equally; if Thomas needs to step away then Biden should be prevented from appointing new justices as well.

That is a prospect that will lead to those on the left scoffing at the very idea. Well, now they know how vacant their claim actually is, in reality.