Letters to the Editor: Virginia Thomas isn’t the story. Her Supreme Court justice husband is
To the editor: I don’t care if conservative activist Virginia Thomas still sticks to the stolen election narrative and was in cahoots with some of the Jan. 6 rioters. (“Ginni Thomas reiterates false election claims to Jan. 6 panel,” Sept. 29)
But what about her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas? Can anyone believe that he is unprejudiced or unaware of his wife’s actions and can remain impartial as a judge? A man with a huge chip on his shoulder — who, according to two of his own former clerks, said he wanted to use his position to make liberals’ lives miserable?
This is someone whose confirmation to the court in 1991 was never cleared of the specter of sexual harassment, as alleged by a respectable and believable witness.
Ted Carmely, Sherman Oaks
To the editor: This person’s name is Virginia Thomas. She is being investigated for her involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Needless to say, she is giving this serious matter her middle finger with a big grin on her face.
Yes, her loving husband adores her and may even agree with her. Let him call her by that endearing “Ginni.”
But as long as you are reporting on her connection to Jan. 6, please don’t make her sound cute.
Batia Atzmony, Tarzana
To the editor: What Thomas may not realize — or perhaps she does — is that democracy is like religion. It is fragile and it requires faith.
She continues to insist that the 2020 election was stolen, despite a total lack of evidence. If enough people believe her, whether or not it is true will be a moot point. People will lose faith in democracy and stop voting, creating a vaccum and chaos and a perfect opportunity for some strongman to fill the vacuum and suspend the rule of law in the name of “restoring order.”
I doubt that Thomas’ intention is to overthrow democracy in America. But if it happens, her intention will become a moot point.
Bart Braverman, Indio
To the editor: Maybe such things as truth tables and logical fallacies should be taught at earlier ages so voters can make and understand reasonable arguments.
Democracy works, as does electing heads of state by popular vote, the way smart countries with real parliaments do. One doesn’t have to be a U.S. Supreme Court justice to figure out that life doesn’t begin instantaneously, for example, since everyone already knows it.
Unfortunately, we live in a country where outright lying can fool some of the people all the time, including voters.
Ronald Webster, Long Beach