Although much of the world was focused on Ukraine, Republicans “won” some points with independent voters during the confirmation hearings of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.  According to polling after the hearing, independent and conservatives voter are less likely to support a vote for Judge Brown Jackson.  Other liberals are mad at Democrats for the handling of the hearing, for not playing the race card enough.  So Democrats and liberals went back to their tried and true attacks on black conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.  However, this attack was extreme even for them.  They are calling for Justice Thomas to recuse himself or even resign because of texts his wife, Ginni Thomas, sent.  As RNLA Chair Harmeet Dhillon stated:

“Ginni Thomas is a private citizen who is entitled to her own opinions independent of her husband,” Harmeet Dhillon, chair of the Republican National Lawyers Association, told the DCNF. “To impart to a spouse his wife’s private conversations as a recusal factor is both unprecedented and grossly sexist.”

“Ms. Thomas is neither a litigant, nor a lawyer, nor even a material witness, to any case presently before the court, nor is she likely to be, despite how hard the left is straining to make this sexist trope into an issue,” Dhillon continued.

The Left's latest attack on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has gone too far... again. This time, they are joining forces with the media to question the integrity of Justice Thomas because of his wife's involvement in political activities. Mark Paoletta writes for Newsweek:

The legacy corporate media has launched an unprecedented smear campaign against Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Ginni, falsely claiming that Justice Thomas is violating ethics laws in light of his wife's political activities. Some have even advocated impeaching Justice Thomas for failing to recuse. They are, in effect, demanding a new standard for recusal that has no place in the law or in past practice.

The media just attempted to smear Justice Thomas again, but as is often the case, they came off as bluntly racist instead. In an article written about Rep. Jim Clyburn's influence on President Joe Biden's pick to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court, reporters Cleve R. Wootson Jr. and Marianna Sotomayor wrote (emphasis added):

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), a friend and ally of Clyburn's for over 30 years, said even Clyburn's critics respect his political instincts and his connection with a valuable but often disappointed subset of Democratic voters.

"Nobody that I'm aware of feels that opposing Clyburn's nomination would be the wise thing to do," he said. "If you know that a person has been vetted by Jim Clyburn, you know that person won't go to the court and end up being a Clarence Thomas," referring to the Black justice whose rulings often resemble the thinking of White conservatives.

When Justice Clarence Thomas was going through the confirmation process, Democrats orchestrated false allegations that Thomas had harassed a former employee, Anita Hill, in an effort to derail his nomination to the Supreme Court. The character assassination was led by none other than then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Joe Biden. The remarkable thing is that Biden did not even believe Hill, but he chose to use her testimony anyways. Mark Paoletta, who worked on Justice Thomas' confirmation, recalled one specific instance where then-Senator Biden pressured Hill to change her testimony to fit the Democrats' attacks on Justice Thomas:

Hill, who had been discussing in detail alleged conversations with Thomas and others that happened many years earlier, told Specter she could not remember any such conversations. According to Specter:

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will hear two separate challenges to race-based admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The National Review reported:

The Court will hear challenges by non-profit Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The group alleges that Harvard discriminates against Asian applicants, and that UNC uses race in admissions even though “race-neutral alternatives can achieve diversity.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected every level of the legal system all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. Since last year, the Court has been conducting oral arguments via telephone. One byproduct of this change is that Justice Clarence Thomas has been a more active questioner than he has ever been since joining the Court. The New York Times reports: 

Justice Clarence Thomas, who once went a decade without asking a question from the Supreme Court bench, is about to complete a term in which he was an active participant in every single argument.

By now you've probably heard that South Carolina Senator Tim Scott knocked the Republican response to Joe Biden's first congressional address out of the park. One of the most poignant moments of the Senator's remarks came when he directly called out the left for their racist attacks against him:

“I’ve also experienced a different kind of intolerance. I get called Uncle Tom and the N-word by progressives, by liberals,” Scott said. “Just last week, a national newspaper suggested my family’s poverty was actually privileged because a relative owned land generations before my time.”

Unfortunately, leftists doubled down on their disgusting, racist attacks after the speech.

Amazon is at it again, "cancelling" viewpoints it doesn't agree with. Its latest target? "Created Equal," a documentary about U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. 

This morning, the Supreme Court dropped its much-anticipated opinion on faithless electors in Chiafalo v. Washington, which was consolidated with Colorado Department of State v. Baca.  Ruling unanimously, the Court held that a state may enforce an elector’s pledge to support their party’s nominee – and the state voters’ choice – for president in the Electoral College.

For many, the Court’s opinion puts to rest the argument that electors have the freedom to depart from the will of the voters to instead cast their vote as they please; however, the Court’s decision leaves open two methods by which electors can remain faithless – (1) when the state has no law in place to compel faithfulness, and (2) when the penalty is a monetary fine that the elector can pay in exchange for his unfaithfulness.

Today, the Supreme Court held in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue that, under the Free Exercise Clause, if a state has a program giving public dollars to citizens to use at private schools, it cannot tell those citizens that the money can only be used at non-religious private schools.  Montana had decided that its scholarship program funds could not be used at religious schools under the state's Blaine Amendment, a legacy of a failed anti-Catholic amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Many First Amendment advocates hope this opinion proves to be a fatal blow to the discriminatory anti-religious Blaine Amendments still found in many state constitutions.