recusal

Debate about ethical standards for Supreme Court justices has intensified after a series of revelations about undisclosed gifts, luxury travel and property deals. 

Adam Liptak, who covers the court for The Times, reviews the allegations of misconduct and the growing calls to do something about it.

Guest: Adam Liptak, a correspondent covering the United States Supreme Court for The New York Times.

Background reading: 

• Revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas’s failure to disclose largess from a Republican donor have highlighted a dilemma.
• In written testimony sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the retired conservative judge J. Michael Luttig called for new ethics rules for Supreme Court justices.

For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

A series of text messages released in the past week show how Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, urged White House officials to push to overturn the result of the 2020 election.

There has never been a spouse of a sitting justice who has been as overt a political activist as Ms. Thomas — and that presents a real conundrum for the court.

Guest: Jo Becker, an investigative reporter for The New York Times. 

Have you lost a loved one during the pandemic? The Daily is working on a special episode memorializing those we have lost to the coronavirus. If you would like to share their name on the episode, please RECORD A VOICE MEMO and send it to us at thedaily@nytimes.com. You can find more information and specific instructions here.

Background reading: 

• The long crusade of the Thomases has taken them from the fringes of the conservative movement to the very center of it.
• In the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, Ginni Thomas was involved in a range of efforts to keep President Donald J. Trump in power.

Want more from The Daily? For one big idea on the news each week from our team, subscribe to our newsletter. 

For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. 

It was a 12-hour session. Twenty-two senators took turns questioning Judge Amy Coney Barrett on her record and beliefs.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, evoked personal experience of life before Roe v. Wade and asked Judge Barrett whether she would vote to overturn abortion rights.

On that question, Judge Barrett demurred — an approach she would take to other contentious issues, including whether she would recuse herself if a presidential election dispute came before the court.

With Judge Barrett’s confirmation all but certain, Democratic senators pressed her more with the election in mind than out of any hope of derailing her rise.

Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times, gives us a rundown of the second day of the hearings.

Guest: Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The Times.

For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily

Background reading:

• In declining to detail her legal views, Judge Barrett said she would not be “a pawn” of President Trump.
• With the hearing taking place closer to an election than any other Supreme Court confirmation — and with the Senate Republican majority at real risk — the proceeding was riddled with electoral politics.
• Judge Barrett’s testimony was a deft mix of expertise and evasion. She demonstrated easy familiarity with Supreme Court precedents but said almost nothing about whether they should stand.