Oral argument in Trump v. Anderson

Guess who asked the first question?

Yup, Formerly Silent Clarence, whose wife was quite literally part of the insurrection itself, and the conspiracy leading up to it.

Check out the spanking brand new Code of Ethics, adopted by the Supreme Court to police and thieve themselves:

A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in
which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,
that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware
of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could
fairly discharge his or her duties. Such instances include, but are
not limited to, those in which:
(a) The Justice has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding;
(b) At a prior stage of the proceeding, the Justice represented
a party, or a lawyer with whom the Justice previously
practiced law served during such association as a lawyer
for a party, or the Justice or lawyer has been a material
witness in the proceeding;
(c) The Justice knows that the Justice, individually or as a
fiduciary, or the Justice’s spouse or minor child residing in
the Justice’s 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 affected
substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;
(d) The Justice or the Justice’s spouse, or a person related to
either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse
of such person, is known by the Justice: (i) to be a party to
the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) to be acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) to have
an interest that could be substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceeding; or (iv) likely to be a material
witness in the proceeding.