"The only member of the high court who signaled he would have granted Trump’s request was Justice Clarence Thomas."

This was largely expected, given that SCOTUS had already denied Trumps' request for a stay on this case — effectively releasing the documents to the committee.https://t.co/bSCm4NRDBi

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 22, 2022

That would be this Clarence Thomas:

"This article draws on hours of recordings and internal documents from groups affiliated with the Thomases; dozens of interviews with the Thomases’ classmates, friends, colleagues and critics, as well as more than a dozen Trump White House aides and supporters and some of Justice Thomas’s former clerks; and an archive of Council for National Policy videos and internal documents provided by an academic researcher in Australia, Brent Allpress," the newspaper reported. "The reporting uncovered new details on the Thomases’ ascent: how Trump courted Justice Thomas; how Ginni Thomas used that courtship to gain access to the Oval Office, where her insistent policy and personnel suggestions so aggravated aides that one called her a “wrecking ball” while others put together an opposition-research-style report on her that was obtained by The Times; and the extent to which Justice Thomas flouted judicial-ethics guidance by participating in events hosted by conservative organizations with matters before the court."

The Thomases are taking a wrecking-ball to the Court, too. 

"New reporting also shows just how blurred the lines between the couple’s interests became during the effort to overturn the 2020 election, which culminated in the rally held at the Ellipse, just outside the White House grounds, aimed at stopping Congress from certifying the state votes that gave Joe Biden his victory. Many of the rally organizers and those advising Trump had connections to the Thomases, but little has been known about what role, if any, Ginni Thomas played, beyond the fact that on the morning of the March to Save America, as the rally was called, she urged her Facebook followers to watch how the day unfolded," the newspaper reported.

The idea that the Court is aloof, impartial, and just an "umpire calling balls and strikes," is being actively destroyed, and not just by Court rulings, but by the fact the only restraint on lifetime employment of the Justices is impeachment.

The only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805. The House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment against him; however, he was acquitted by the Senate. 

So, no restraint at all. No one tells a Justice to recuse herself/himself; it's up to the individual justice. No one tells them what to do in their political life, either.  No one tells them not to support clearly illegal and unconstitutional causes.  No one tells them to stand aside and not support assaults both legal and physical on the very foundations of our democratic processes.

Quis custodiet ipso custodes? 

The answer is: no one.