Quite the opposite, actually.  Conservatives have a super majority on the court, but ruled 8-1 against Trump, with the majority including all of the justices he appointed.  If anything, that is evidence the Court's decision was not political.  

"I don't know if Clarence Thomas did anything illegal, but he most certainly acted unethically when he failed to recuse himself in Trump v. Bennie G. Thompson.  Instead, he chose to conceal a blatant conflict of interest."

If he knew about the texts, which is very possible, I agree with you.  But that means we have one justice who is compromised on this case; not the whole Court, as contended by Charles.

Also, I don't think it should be treated as a foregone conclusion that he knew about the texts. Certainly Thomas was aware of his wife's extreme political views and activism, and even that she was in touch with people that were part of the power structure in DC, but Thomas would only be conflicted in this case if he knew she was communicating with Meadows, and its possible he didn't. 

How many people do you communicate with by text on a daily basis at work?  How many of those texts do you go home and show your wife?  How many work related conversations do you share in detail with your spouse? 

Once it was clear to Thomas that every other justice was going to rule the other way, he would have to be extremely stupid or extremely arrogant to be the lone dissent, because he would have known the texts would be exposed, and that his conflict of interest would become public knowledge.  Why would Thomas subject himself to a scandal and public scrutiny?  To protect his wife?  Clearly not.  She's not being accused of any crimes, and she certainly is not embarrassed by her views.

"we’re supposed to believe she had the restraint and good judgment to 'never discuss her work' with her husband."

Fortunately, we're not relying on her good judgment.  She's a private citizen.  We're relying on her husband to be smart enough and ethical enough to know there are some things that can't be discussed at home, because of the potential that a conflict could be created.  

Since his wife is a professional lobbyist, it doesn't require a lot of intelligence to realize that her job constantly involves her with people and causes that could be implicated by a case before the court.  

If Justice Thomas is at all concerned with maintaining impartiality, then I'd imagine they have some strict rules at home that preclude them from holding detailed discussions about work.

Do they follow those rules?  Who knows?  If not, how would a congressional investigation uncover the content of private conversations between a husband and wife?  You're only going to find out what they are willing to admit.

"This illustrates a notable flaw in the SCOTUS... there is no mechanism to enforce accountability or ethical behavior"

I agree, but what would you do?  If the enforcement mechanism were in the hands of POTUS or the legislature, it would wind up being used for political purposes, and then the Court would truly be compromised.  I think any sanction would have to come from the other justices, or from an independent entity that doesn't currently exist (something that would be created for the express purpose of policing the court).

"In the future, some SCOTUS opinions will be questionable because Thomas wrote them."

Why just the cases in which he wrote opinions?  If you're that concerned, I would think you would look at every case he heard; especially cases that were decided by a majority of 5-4.

In my opinion, every opinion is questionable, regardless of authorship, even when there is ZERO evidence of impropriety.

Having said that, if we assume the worst, which is that Thomas dissented expressly because he didn't want his wife's text messages to be exposed, then I agree with the principle you are arguing, but I don't think it calls everything Thomas ever touched into question.

If Thomas was writing for the majority, then he was expressing the legal views of at least four other justices, which mitigates the impact of any bad intentions on his part.  If he was writing for the dissent, as in Trump v. Thompson, then his opinion had no impact on the outcome of the case.  Consequently, in questioning any decision, the most important thing is still whether the decision is legally and logically sound. 

To clarify: I'm not suggesting that a Supreme Court Justice acting in bad faith is ever irrelevant. Its something we should always be very concerned about, and I'm sure it has happened before (I'd be in favor of some type of sanctioning mechanism, as long as it wasn't in the hands of a political entity such as the president or the legislature). I'm just saying we shouldn't over react.   

"This isn’t about illegal activity. It is about unethical behaviour. In light of the recent Republican questioning to Ketanji Brown Jackson during her confirmation hearing I have to believe the Supreme Court is quickly becoming a US embarrassment."

What you're talking about reflects badly on the Senate; not the Court.  Its also highlights the problem with giving the legislature the ability to sanction Supreme Court Justices for ethics violations.  

There is no more ethically compromised body in government than Congress or the Senate. Whatever mechanism you give them will immediately be turned into a political weapon to undermine court decisions.  Imagine the amount of time and money that would be wasted on investigations every time the party in the majority disagreed with an important decision by the court.

John: I couldn't really read any further into your response, because this is so baldly illogical it kind of made me wince. It sounds very, very much like you're saying that the court isn't compromised because the eight non--conflicted Justices are there to balance out Thomas.

In a macro sense, no. I'm saying that in this instance, Thomas may have been conflicted, but if he was, it is an aberration.  There are times when all of us will disagree with a court decision, but for the most part the justices set aside their political preferences, and make decisions that reflect their good faith efforts to interpret the law.  The fact that you have an 8-1 majority in this case, which includes all of the other conservative justices aligned against Trump, is illustrative of this. The justices tend to act in good faith.

So I disagree with the notion that the Supreme Court is a national embarrassment because one justice may have made a bad decision (not to recuse himself) in one case.

But I'm not excusing Thomas.  If he knew about the text messages and didn't recuse himself, or at least disclose the conflict, that is terrible and inexcusable. 

In a micro sense, yes.  If we look at any individual court case (in this case Trump v. Thompson), the effect of one conflicted justice can be offset by the rest of the court.  As I suggested to Mark, there are some cases (specifically 5-4 cases) that you might look at very closely, but in an 8-1 situation, any conflict there may have been did not influence the outcome of the case.  Its unnecessary to go back and second guess every decision he was involved with.

Eric, I think that depends on the definition of "compromised."  I agree the court is compromised in the sense that if one justice is conflicted, you may not have a fully impartial panel (I say "may" because not every situation that involves a conflict on paper renders a person incapable of being impartial).  We're on the same page with that.

I meant that the court was not compromised in two ways:

First, there is no evidence Thomas's conflict extends to the other justices. To suggest the entire institution is compromised or corrupt overlooks the fact that 8 justices acted appropriately.  I think its more accurate to say the court is structurally flawed because there is no mechanism to enforce judicial ethics.  But to the best of our knowledge, any ethics problems that exist don't extend past Thomas.    

Second, with regard to this case, the court's decision was not compromised by Thomas's apparent conflict.

I'd be inclined to give Thomas the benefit of the doubt, but it probably needs at least looking into.

He would not need to know specifically about the texts.  Simply knowing that his wife was actively engaged in formal efforts to overturn the election would be sufficient to create a conflict of interest.  I am skeptical that he did not know that.

Furthermore, since he knows her profession, I would say that ethical standards would require him to specifically ask her if any of her work activities might be related to any case he is hearing.  Ethics require him to avoid even the appearance of bias.  Ignorance of her activities does not strike me as a sufficient defense, since he should be exercising due diligence beforehand to find out if there is any potential conflict.