Proof that the standard for recusal has been met is clearly indicated by the many comments criticizing Clarence Thomas’ refusal to recuse himself. A large number of people think his action was inappropriate. The standard of proof has been met. I don’t know what your agenda is, but even if Clarence Thomas were the most impartial jurist in the world, this situation demands recusal. The stakes are too high and this decision too politically charged to have any legitimate justification. A thoughtful justice would withdraw out of an abundance of caution. But of course Clarence Thomas has never been objective or thoughtful.