We The People hereby exercise our First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of our grievances to demand the immediate resignation of Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.             

We base this demand on Clarence Thomas's egregious breach of judicial ethics, in violation of 28 U.S. Code § 455.

By not recusing himself from several cases related to the 2020 presidential election, including the yet to be heard John C. Eastman v. Bennie G.Thompson et al, which will likely be brought before the Supreme Court in the next session, we believe that Clarence Thomas willfully and brazenly attempted to cover-up serious criminal activity related to his wife Ginni's participation in the "Stop The Steal" plot to overturn the 2020 presidential elections results and the planning of the January 6, 2021 insurrection against the United States government, specifically the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol intended to stop the constitutionally required certification of the Electoral College vote.      

As evidence herewith this demand, we present the fact that Clarence Thomas was the lone dissent in former president Donald Trump's lawsuit attempting to withhold documents pertaining to White House communications, some of which revealed "StopThe Steal" texts & emails between Ginni Thomas and members of Trump's staff & inner circle. 

Exhibit A:     
https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-only-justice-dissent-in-trump-january-6-bid-2022-3 

Exhibit B: 
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/legal-scholars-are-shocked-by-ginni-thomass-stop-the-steal-texts 

Exhibit C: 

28 US Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(5 ) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.

(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:

(1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;

(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;

(3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;

(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:

(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;

(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;

(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;

(iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.

(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection
(b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection
(a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.

(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.

"The law is reason, free from passion." -- Aristotle

While removal via impeachment would be justly deserved, we recognize that even if the House were to have enough votes to impeach Clarence Thomas, the Senate would likely acquit him because the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority (67 Senators) vote in favor of a conviction in order for anyone to be removed via the impeachment process.

The current Senate (as of 2022) is evenly split between 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, and this same Senate also acquitted former president Donald Trump in his second impeachment, which was regarding his role in the January 6th insurrection.

An acquittal would only serve to further embolden Clarence Thomas et al to disregard the norms of judicial ethics, the standards that bear on all judges, covering such matters as maintaining independence, impartiality, and avoiding impropriety.

The only solution is for Clarence Thomas to step down immediately. 

Therefore, We The People, having read and understood the purpose of this petition, hereby electronically put our hand to demand the resignation of Clarence Thomas without delay.

#ResignClarence