Supreme Court abortion leak investigation and the curious case of Clarence Thomas and Co.

I was glad to hear U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts launched an investigation into who leaked a draft opinion on abortion rights, and while I don’t claim to be an expert on leaks or investigations or court credibility, I wonder if he might also want to look into how the wife of another justice might have supported an attempt to overthrow the government.

Just throwing that out there in hopes of being helpful.

Roberts reportedly summoned the Marshal of the Court, who I assume carries a badge and has a six-shooter on each hip, to sniff out the leaker who gave Politico a draft opinion showing the court may overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that gave women the constitutional right to abortion. It’s definitely important to get to the bottom of that, but as long as they’re doing some investigating, maybe the marshal could hop on a horse and trot over to this other justice’s office – I think his name is Clarence – and inquire about the far-right activist he’s married to, Ginni Thomas.

The 'integrity of our operations'

In a statement, Roberts said the leak of the draft opinion was “intended to undermine the integrity of our operations” and “was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the court and the community of public servants who work here.”

All true, for sure. You can’t have a leaky high court.

But we haven’t heard Roberts comment yet on the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, who, based on text messages turned over to the Jan. 6 committee, thinks the 2020 presidential election was “the greatest Heist of our History” and “the end of Liberty” and that the Bidens, members of the media and other “ballot fraud co-conspirators” will soon “be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition.”

A Mother's Day reminder: We all feel guilty but are trying our best.

I’m just a humble columnist, but she sounds a few flapjacks shy of breakfast, if you know what I mean. Seems any good investigation aimed at preserving the reputation of the court might want to make sure none of that zaniness found its way into Justice Thomas’ head. You know … through osmosis and whatnot.

Why didn't Thomas recuse himself?

Again, I know the leak is a bad thing, but … you know … maybe so is knowing your wife might have sent a batch of unhinged text messages to the White House chief of staff and then not recusing yourself from the case that would allow those text messages to be revealed.

Because that’s exactly what happened in January, when Justice Thomas was the only member of the court to rule in favor of former President Donald Trump’s request to keep White House records from the Jan. 6 committee.

Are we trying to destroy America? From Tucker to Trump, we're doing a good job of it.

A month earlier, Ginni Thomas had signed her name to a letter sent to conservative leaders lambasting the work of the committee investigating the domestic terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol building that happened after a “Save America Rally” she attended.

A convenient series of events

To summarize – and I apologize, marshal, I’m not trying to do your work for you – in the wake of Trump’s election loss to President Joe Biden, Thomas sent wildly conspiratorial emails to Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff at the time, then she helped promote and attend the rally that led to the attack on the U.S. Capitol, then she denounced the committee investigating the attack, then her husband on the Supreme Court was the only justice who wanted to block the release of information that would include his wife’s texts to Meadows.

Columnist Rex Huppke: Ginni Thomas' texts show the Big Lie has metastasized into a Big Delusion. Enough already.

I’m not a marshal, nor am I trained in tracking down leaks or leakers. I have neither plumbing nor investigative experience. But I still think the Thomas family situation might fall under the “undermine the integrity of our operations” umbrella the Chief Justice opened, so as long as you’ve got your guy doing some poking around, why not turn over a few additional rocks and see what you find?

And while you’re at it – and I say this at the risk of sounding bossy – what about the fact that the court, focused as it is on maintaining credibility, has three new justices who were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by senators representing far fewer voters than the senators opposed to the confirmations?

Representing a minority of voters

Those three justices – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – all show up on the leaked draft opinion casting deciding votes to overturn Roe v. Wade. Doesn’t it seems kind of important, court credibility-wise, that the people making decisions on a fundamental right supported by a strong majority of Americans actually represent a strong majority of Americans?

This Court was built by power politics. It doesn't deserve to rule on Roe v. Wade

Otherwise, it starts to seem like a small minority of people driven by certain religious views are determining what the rest of us can and can’t do, and that gets a bit … you know … theocracy-sounding.

Anyhoo, I probably don’t know what I’m talking about, but just wanted to throw some stuff at the wall of the court and see what sticks.

I wish the marshal good luck finding the leaker. I know we’ll all feel a lot better once the court’s credibility is restored.

Or, as Ginni Thomas might put it, once the leaker is in Guantanamo, President Trump has been rightfully restored to office and all the 5G cellular towers have been torn down so Microsoft’s Bill Gates can no longer turn our pets into communists. Or whatever.

Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Twitter @RexHuppke and Facebook: facebook.com/RexIsAJerk

.oembed-frame {width:100%;height:100%;margin:0;border:0;}

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court abortion leak investigation needed. What about Thomas?