A Washington Post columnist on Wednesday called it "staggering" that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' wife tried to prevent reforms to the nation's high court.
Ruth Marcus, a Pulitzer Prize finalist for commentary, appeared floored in her column over a bombshell Pro-Publica report that found Ginni Thomas privately praised the conservative First Liberty Institute, a major religious-rights group, for fighting efforts to reform the Supreme Court. Notably, those efforts were largely initiated due to questions swirling over Clarence Thomas' actions.
The group, Marcus noted, litigates extensively before the Supreme Court on major issues including religious liberty and LGBTQ+ rights.
"And Thomas’s email was not just some generic note of appreciation," Marcus emphasized. "It was to praise First Liberty for its fierce, and deep-pocketed, fight against … wait for it … proposals to reform the Supreme Court and strengthen ethics enforcement against the justices."
In a follow-up email after meeting with a staffer from the group, Mrs. Thomas reportedly wrote: "Great to meet through the meetings today."
ALSO READ: Why Trump’s Arlington controversy is actually a crime
She added: "I cannot adequately express enough appreciation for you guys pulling into reacting to the Biden effort on the Supreme Court," referring to proposed ethics reforms.
"The impropriety here is multilayered — and staggering," wrote Marcus.
She noted that Mrs. Thomas is a political activist who has said in the past her actions — such as attending the Jan. 6 "Stop the Steal" rally — are acceptable because she and her husband have their own separate careers.
In this case, Marcus argues she clearly crosses that line.
"Now Ginni Thomas isn’t just lobbying to 'Stop the Steal' — she’s trying to Stop the Reform of her husband’s own institution. So much for separate careers," said Marcus.
She said Ginni is now known as a "behind-the-scenes player seeking to frustrate any changes" and whom is a "grateful" beneficiary of First Liberty’s efforts.
All this is to say, Marcus argues, that the most "persuasive reason" the Supreme Court needs an ethics enforcement mechanism is Ginni Thomas.
