Today is Friday, March 25, 2022. The biggest story today other than the continuing Russian-Ukrainian war is the raging scandal arising out of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his far-right, fringe wife, Ginni Thomas, and her released emails written to then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and her role in the January 6th insurrection. Thomas’ refusal to recuse himself before cases relating to the January 6th siege is beyond the pale. This time the antics of his MAGA-loving wife have truly crossed a line and we need to do something to stop this clear conflict of interest with regard to the conservative jurist. The venerable New York Times came out with an editorial demanding that the justice step down after these scandalous revelations were released. The shenanigans behind Ginni Thomas’s placid – but active – role in a potential overthrow of an existing government is found online on my smartphone by Tom Boggioni entitled “Time for Clarence Thomas to step down after ‘haunting the court for years’: NYT editorial board member.”

The documents handed over to the House committee examining the January 6th attack against the Capitol bore text messages from Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas. These messages showed that Ms. Thomas relentlessly urged Mr. Meadows to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which she had the temerity to call a “heist,” and indicated that she reached out to Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, about Dumpf’s legal efforts to retain power. She even had the balls to suggest the lawyer who should be put in charge of that effort. Now Ms. Thomas has put herself in legal jeopardy since the committee is weighing the option to force her to testify in front of the panel. Thomas actively worked to overturn a legitimate election from her perch on the nine-member board of CNP Action, a conservative group that helped advance the “Stop the Steal” movement. This month, Ms. Thomas acknowledged attending the rally that preceded the violence in an interview with a conservative news outlet, but otherwise tried to downplay her role. Then came the disclosures of the texts to Mr. Meadows and their explosive implications. Now the committee must decide if it wants to subpoena the justice’s wife to offer testimony before it.

The editorial demanding that Thomas step down was written by Jesse Wegman who asserts that Clarence and Ginni Thomas have “done enough damage” since Clarence took his spot on the country’s highest court since 1991.

The columnist noted that Ginni Thomas’s screwball antics have not only cast a cloud over her husband’s curious sole vote to keep Dumpf’s White House documents secret, but also what influence she has had on his 30-year career. Wegman himself asks, “What did Justice Clarence Thomas know, and when did he know it?” Wegman notes that this question is usually directed toward politicians, not judges, but it’s now a fair one in light of the revelation on Thursday that Thomas’s wife was working feverishly behind the scenes in a high-level effort to rescind the results of the 2020 election.

Even though Thomas might not have known that his wife was texting during the insurrection attempt, the damage is done, nonetheless, the columnist states. Wegman goes on to say that the Supreme Court is the most powerful judicial body in the country, and that it depends on the trust of Americans in its execution of its rulings, and if there is even the “stench” of partisanship observed in its justices, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor has labeled it, then the impartiality of the august body is suspect. Each justice must make every possible effort to appear fair, unbiased, and beyond approach. The new Thomas revelations just shatter that supposed impartiality. If Clarence Thomas continues to refuse to recuse himself from cases arising from the events of January 6, then he should be removed from the bench.

Another critic of the Thomases, Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, mentioned that Ginni Thomas knowingly signed up for “Stop the Steal” activities and that the movement definitely had an interest in how the high court would rule. Gillers said, “That’s all I need to know.” He went on to say that his patience with the high-profile couple has run out.

Wegman chides the wife’s antics and her husband’s continual refusal to respond appropriately, concluding that “He would do the country a service by stepping down and making room for someone who won’t have that problem.”

So when the new Biden prospect for the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, is appointed to the high court, maybe we could rejoice a second time by having another go at choosing Clarence Thomas’s replacement. Boy, will repugnicans be livid if that came to pass! This is my fantasy right now.

On a more closer-to-home topic, I must speak out about the double standard being practiced by our newly minted mayor, Eric Adams, in his bizarre decision to lift the COVID mandate that prohibited unvaccinated professional athletes from playing home games in New York City, but did not lift the mandate requiring all public employees to be vaccinated or risk losing their jobs. The message Adams is clearly sending to the world is that New York City prefers the services of millionaire athletes like Brooklyn Nets star Kyrie Irving and others like him who have objected to getting vaccinated for the good of their teams over the services of its municipal workforce including police officers, sanitation officers, firefighters, correction officers, and teachers. This controversial decision by Adams is analyzed in a Daily News article today by Michael Gartland and Peter Senzamici entitled “Vax rule lifted, but not for all: Adams cans mandate for athletes, performers, but stirs ire as other workers must comply.”

Under this ruling, entertainers are also exempt from getting their shots. Adams announced his decision at a a news conference at Citi Field, in which he chastised the mandate as first implemented as being unfair to local athletes and performers because it exempted their out-of-town counterparts from the restriction, but not them. To me, this was a fault of the original mandate: Everyone should have been covered by the restrictions, not giving a free pass to out-of-town athletes and entertainers. If you come here to work or play at one of our stadiums, you should be expected to be vaccinated. No two ways about it!

Adams’ reasoning to lift the restrictions seems suspect to me, but here goes: He cited the city’s high unemployment rate and scores of vacant storefronts as justification to lift the restrictions, arguing that allowing them to perform on an equal footing would attract more fans and get them patronizing local businesses. Again, the mayor cites financial considerations here rather than the appearance of a double standard in not putting in place the restrictions for everyone working here.

The article states that it didn’t take long for critics to denounce Adams’ decision. Some have said the decision was unfair in light of a separate city mandate that requires all public employees to be vaccinated or be terminated. Already, about 1,400 municipal employees were fired for not complying. So since athletes and other high-profile entertainers are not exempt from this restriction, shouldn’t these fired employees be rehired by the city? Asked this question by reporters, Adams responded, “not at this time.”

Harry Nespoli, president of the Uniformed Sanitationmen’s Association, lashed out, saying, “There should be a reentry program for workers to get their jobs back.” Nespoli also heads the Municipal Labor Committee. He added, “There can’t be one system for the elite and another for the essential workers of our city.”

Even ordinary New Yorkers like Bryce Chung, 18, a student at Fordham University, said it was “hypocritical.” Charles Scott, 68, a City College professor, called Adams’ decision a “horrible example” that will result in “a bunch of lawsuits.”

One of the former mayor’s top public health advisers, Dr. Jay Varma, also disagreed with the message that Adams was conveying with this decision. He predicted that this new policy will lead to credible legal challenges and he contended that it sends the wrong message to people on the fence about getting vaccinated. I sure feel the same way. There was an online CNN article saying that the momentum in getting more people vaccinated has run out of steam, probably stemming from most of the restrictions being eased by states all throughout the country. People now feel that if they don’t have to show proof of inoculation, they don’t really need to be vaccinated. Cases will rise, I assure you.

Varma states, “There’s no legal reason that an adult baseball player deserves an exemption more than a waiter.” He adds, “The goal through all of this is to recognize we’re all in this together. If we’re saying, ‘You’re rich and powerful so you don’t have to play by the rules,’ that just sows division in our society.”

In criticizing the new policy, Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine claimed Adams’ reversal is flawed, but heaped scorn on professional athletes who won’t get vaccinated for squandering an opportunity to encourage people to get their shots. Levine fumed, “It’s amazing that the top story is that athletes who influence millions of people have refused to set an example that could save thousands of lives.” I wonder if fans who rush to see their favorite unvaccinated athlete play in some game have been aware of their refusal to do something for the common good and would even contemplate boycotting their appearance at games. I don’t think this would happen since fans have such short-term memories.

The article concludes by suggesting – and the mayor vehemently denies this – that the mayor could have been swayed by outside lobbyists such as the Nets’ hiring of the Parkside Group and former City Council Speaker Corey Johnson lobbying for himself. Adams flatly denied he was lobbied. Should we take him at his word? Let’s see what happens if these unvaccinated players and performers get COVID-19 by being unvaccinated and spreading it to their teammates or cast members. Will those people be happy with Adams’ decision then?

Talking about entertainers, I forgot to mention that I saw one of them in The Music Man yesterday, Hugh Jackman. That’s why this space was blank yesterday. His costar in the Meredith Wilson play was the lovely Sutton Foster. As of yesterday, Broadway has not adjusted its current plan to require vaccinations for audience members, as I was expected to produce my proof of vaccination and photo ID on line yesterday evening before entering the theater. I very much prefer this myself, even though it can get slightly uncomfortable wearing a mask for almost three hours, as I had to yesterday.

Jackman is just the antidote we all need as we enter the third year of the COVID pandemic. Everyone should know the plot of the play by now; it’s been around since 1957 when it first premiered on Broadway. For those who have amnesia or who really don’t know the story, it’s a sentimental throwback to a vanished era, 1912 small-town life, as lived in River City, Iowa. The story follows the exploits of a “Professor” Harold Hill, a con man posing as a traveling salesman, who drops into town to sell the locals on the idea of a boys’ marching band – along with the necessary uniforms and instruments – even though he has no idea as to how to set this up. Hill meets his match, though, in Marian the librarian, an independent, sharp-tongued, spinsterish woman here played by Foster. She spurns Hill’s advances, seeing through his ruse. But when Hill eventually melts his opponent’s defenses, Hill gives up his swindling, vagabond ways to settle down with her and truly organize the boys into a real marching band. The play boasts such well-known musical numbers as “Seventy-Six Trombones,” “Ya Got Trouble,” “Good Night, My Someone,” and “Till There Was You,” and many others. Jackman displays his triple talents as singer, dancer, and actor in the play. Foster is just luminescent in her transformation from a skeptical, untrusting, chaste woman to one that just lets it all rip in Act II. Her singing is lilting in all its gloriousness. I particularly enjoyed the young actor who portrayed her lisping brother, Winthrop (Benjamin Pajak), who comes out of his reserve after the death of his father, to belt out “The Wells Fargo Wagon” with the townspeople before the end of Act I. Can you believe a young Ron Howard played the 11-year-old in the 1962 film version of this play, along with Robert Preston who originated the role?

Anyway, I had a thoroughly lovely time last night; my only quibble was the air conditioning that was blowing at maximum force, it seemed. People were donning their coats at their seats – it was that cold. During intermission, I had to rush to the men’s room, where there was such a huge line of gentlemen waiting their turn to relieve themselves that I thought I’d be late returning to my seat. I even mentioned to someone in front of me, “So this is how women must feel.” He was not amused.

It’s the weekend once more. So have a good weekend, whatever you do.

Oh, and the kitchen renovation still plods on, with our contractor taking off next Monday and Tuesday because of his having to travel to his daughter in Silver Spring, Maryland. I think this week marks Week 6 of our remodeling job with still no end in sight. Oh well, that’s how the cabinet crumbles!

Stay safe and be well.