> the gift giver (Harlan Crowe) has not been involved in a Supreme Court case since Thomas was on it.

You are the one who suggested Harlan Crowe has no interest in the outcomes of any Supreme Court cases and that him giving undisclosed gifts to the justices in the millions of dollars range couldn’t therefore justify the need for a recusal.

Alternatively you could be honest and admit that the nature of these gifts being undisclosed coming from a person with inherent interest in almost every case is cause for major concern and probably ground for recusal from _every_ case. A Supreme Court justice should be extremely mindful of even the possible appearance or impression of unethical behavior as their unethical behavior serves to discredit the institution itself.

Why do you feel the need to come here and defend this plainly unethical behavior from justice thomas?

I don't think it's plain. My motivation for commenting, generally, is that a lot of people seem to have weird impressions of SCOTUS. In this case, I really don't see cause for recusal, though I suppose it would've been preferable to disclose. (But I suspect I only feel obliged to admit that because of the fervor with which the press reported it, which seems to me somewhat politically motivated.)

I'd be interested if there were an example of a case where Thomas took an opinion that was (a) at odds with his judicial style and (b) clearly and directly benefitted Harlan Crowe. The fall of Chevron deference is not to me one of those cases. I see it, plainly, as returning some powers back to the proper branch.

You seem to be suggesting that no judges should receive gifts from at least any business leaders at all? And if they do that they should recuse. I think that's a rather extreme position. I don't think the minds of justices are so malleable.