Ginni Thomas praises anti-Supreme Court reform group in donor call
- During a donor call on July 31, Ginni Thomas praised the First Liberty Institute for opposing Supreme Court reform.
- Kelly Shackelford criticized Justice Elena Kagan for her support of an ethics code enforcement mechanism, calling her actions treasonous.
- The call highlighted a conservative strategy to resist proposed changes to the Supreme Court, framing it as a defense of democracy.
On July 31, during a private donor call, Kelly Shackelford, president of the First Liberty Institute, read an email from Ginni Thomas praising the group for its efforts against Supreme Court reform. Shackelford criticized Justice Elena Kagan for her support of an enforcement mechanism for the court's ethics code, labeling her actions as treasonous. This call followed President Biden's announcement of support for significant changes to the Supreme Court, which Shackelford described as a dangerous attempt to undermine the institution. The First Liberty Institute, which focuses on defending religious liberty, has been active in legal battles that align with conservative values. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of several cases involving First Liberty, including a decision that struck down Maine's ban on public funding for religious schooling. Shackelford emphasized that the political left's dissatisfaction with a few court decisions has led them to propose reforms that could ultimately destroy the court. Shackelford accused media outlets like ProPublica of attempting to delegitimize the court, claiming that their reporting on ethics lapses was unfounded. He argued that these lapses have led to necessary reforms, including a new ethics code and additional financial disclosures from justices. The First Liberty Institute has raised significant funds to combat efforts to expand the Supreme Court and reform the Senate filibuster, indicating a strong commitment to preserving the current judicial structure. In conclusion, Ginni Thomas's email and Shackelford's remarks reflect a broader conservative strategy to resist changes to the Supreme Court, framing these efforts as a defense of democracy and the rule of law against perceived threats from the political left.