MO GOP Sen. Roy Blunt tells ABC's George Stephanopoulos that he just can't bring himself to vote for a highly qualified Black woman for the Supreme Court, just prior to blowing off Clarence Thomas' glaring conflicts of interest and the need for him to recuse himself in cases involving his wife.
April 3, 2022

MO GOP Sen. Roy Blunt tells ABC's George Stephanopoulos that he just can't bring himself to vote for a highly qualified Black woman for the Supreme Court, just prior to blowing off Clarence Thomas' glaring conflicts of interest and the need for him to recuse himself in cases involving his wife.

Blunt even admitted that the nomination would be historic and overdue, but here's the lame excuse he gave for the no vote:

BLUNT: You know, I've thought -- initially, my sense is that the president certainly had every good intention and every right in the campaign to talk about putting the first black woman on the court. I think it's time for that to happen. I was hoping that I could be part of that. I had a great conversation with her.

Really, there are two criterias, I said immediately. One is, is the person qualified for the job? And two is, what's her judicial philosophy?

She's certainly qualified. I think she's got a great personality, I think will be a good colleague on the court. But the judicial philosophy seems to be not the philosophy of looking at what the law says and the Constitution says and applying that, but going through some method that allows you to try to look at the Constitution as a more flexible document, and even the law. And there are cases that show that that’s her view.

I think she’s certainly going to be confirmed. I think it will be a high point for the country to see her go on the Court and take her unique perspective to the Court but I don't think she's the kind of judge that will really do the kind of work that I think needs to be done by the Court.

And I won't be supporting her but I'll be joining others in understanding the importance of this moment.

Blunt also defended his decision saying there is a "different criteria" for lifetime appointments than other appointments. Sadly for all of us, it seems that "criteria" doesn't include having any ethical standards, or recusing yourself when there are glaring conflicts of interest, as we've seen with Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni.

Here's Blunt's response when asked about the calls for Thomas to recuse himself in cases involving the January 6th investigation:

BLUNT: Well, the idea that you can't disagree with your wife on a public issue and still be able to function as a judge or as a government figure of any kind, I think is an idea that’s long outlived any idea that it might be reasonable. Judge --

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: -- know that he disagrees with her?

BLUNT: -- that. No -- Judge Thomas has to decide that, in his personal opinions, I think in his writings over the years in -- aren't part of his judicial philosophy. He's going to look at the law. He's going to look at what the law says and what the Constitution says and rule in that regard.

I'm certainly totally supportive of the Justice Department effort to find out who did what on January 6th, if they were part of any illegal activity, either executing that or planning that. I think they should be prosecuted and I’m very supportive of that and have been publicly.

In fact, the committee that Senator Klobuchar and I run, we did an early investigation. We’ve made a number of changes about how to secure the Capitol and 85 recommendations on how we can prevent that from happening again. But it was totally unacceptable what happened on January 6th. I think the Justice Department is pursuing that exactly as they should.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Including the possible prosecution of President Trump? We saw that federal judge say it's likely the president broke the law.

BLUNT: Well, federal judges say a lot of things. And we'll see how that comes through the process. I think what I said is what I believe. I think the Justice Department has a job to do. They should do it. And people who were involved in planning or execution of illegal activities on January 6th should be prosecuted.

There are no laws forcing members of the Supreme Court to follow the same ethical guidelines as other judges are forced to follow, which I'm sure Blunt is well aware of. We'll see how supportive they are of the DOJ coming after everyone involved with the "illegal activities on January 6th" if they finally get too close to or directly go after Dear Leader Trump.

Help Us Fight Back Against Social Media Censorship

Facebook has been limiting the visibility of our posts after a serious of bogus violations. We need your help now more than ever.

Discussion

We are currently migrating to Disqus

On May 14, 2022, we started migrating our comments from Insticator back to Disqus. During this transition period, some posts will have Insticator and some Disqus. For more information on the transition, as well as information regarding old C&L accounts, please see this post.


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.