During an interview aired on Friday’s edition of PBS’ “Firing Line,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said he is part of the problem of Supreme Court confirmations becoming more partisan, the information he has seen “strongly suggests” Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from cases related to January 6, and that Thomas’ case is different from other spousal conflicts because it “goes so centrally to the heart of democracy.”
Coons said, “Can you vote for a district court or a circuit court nominee, let alone a nominee to the Supreme Court, who’s highly qualified, who’s got a clean record, who’s served well, but who leans in the opposite direction of your party? … We’ve gotten to the point where that is fraught. If you do that, there are political consequences. Both sides, both parties, and there [are] well-funded, well-resourced groups prepared to make sure that if you make such a decision, you’ll hear about it. And that’s part of the accelerating partisanship of the judicial confirmation process.”
He also said that Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation “was the point at which I first voted against a nominee for the Supreme Court, not based on his — eminently qualified, great temperament, good writer, strong record of service. But I disagreed with his philosophy. And Sen. Graham and I had a very forceful exchange at that point where he said to me, I voted for Kagan. I voted for Sotomayor. If you’re not willing to vote for Gorsuch, what’s that mean? And so, I will own that I am a part of this problem, and recognize that, with Sen. Graham saying, in this process, he’s voting against her, he was the last one on the committee who had a history of voting for qualification, not for or against philosophy.”
Regarding Thomas, Coons stated, “A superficial reading of what I’ve seen in the press strongly suggests that this particular issue and episode has cleared the threshold of a reasonable person would think that the Justice should recuse himself, given the forcefulness, the stridency, the relevance of the messages that are now public between his spouse and leaders in the previous administration.”
Host Margaret Hoover brought up Justice Ginsburg ruling on cases where her husband had a financial interest and Justice Kagan ruling on Obamacare after supporting it as Solicitor General. Coons responded, “There are a wide array of cases we can and should discuss about judicial ethics and the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary generally. This particular case that you’re asking me about goes so centrally to the heart of democracy. Typically, you don’t ascribe to a judge the political opinions, the free speech activity of their spouse, even their business activity. But this is one that is very uncomfortable because of how closely it goes right to the very center of ordered liberty.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett