After an unexplained absence Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas was back at the Supreme Court on Tuesday where he was overseeing a case involving the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
His place on the bench has caused outrage from many who says he should recuse himself from all Jan. 6 cases, largely because his wife Ginni was with Donald Trump and other VIPs in a tent near the stage from which Trump addressed the crowd on that day and encouraged them to march to the Capitol.
Actor Jon Cryer was one of those annoyed to see Thomas refuse to recuse.
Read Also: It's time to hold co-conspirator Ginni Thomas accountable
"That Justice Thomas, whose spouse at the very least supported and helped organize elements that were used in Trump’s coup attempt, has not recused from this case, is a sign of his utter corruption," he posted on the social media site X.
He was retweeting a post from self-described "lapsed lawyer" Mike Sacks, who reported, "Justice Thomas just suggested J6, legally, is no different than any other violent attempt to disrupt official proceedings."
Economist reporter Steven Mazie agreed it was "kind of wild" to see Thomas participate in the Jan. 6 oral arguments. Particularly "when his wife was one of the protestors that day — and had worked assiduously to get the 2020 election overturned."
Some observed that the questions coming from him on Tuesday were particularly insulting.
"Just a side note: Justice Thomas is a condescending pr--k. He's laugh-talking at Prelogar like she's an idiot, when he's the one asking bad questions," pointed out legal analyst Allison Gill. Elizabeth Prelogar is the acting Solicitor General to the United States.
"The conservative justices keep asking of their lame hypotheticals, 'Do you think that's worth 20 years in prison?' Prelogar says look, we have sentencing guidelines, so stop using statutory maximums for statutes with no mandatory minimum to frame your bulls--t hypotheticals. (I'm paraphrasing)," Gill continued.
The defense lawyer, Jeffrey Greene, argued, "That even though the government requires evidence of intent to obstruct a specific proceeding, the way the statute is written means the J6 defendants could be charged if they showed up on January 5th. (that's not true), and continues to wrongly argue about the 20-year max applying to peaceful protests," Gill explained.
Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin complained that Thomas was "minimizing the severity of the 1/6 insurrection at the Capitol. Perhaps that's because his wife was part of the conspiracy. What a disgrace that he's sitting on this case."