Leftist judicial activists have spent the past few years attempting to undermine the Supreme Court's credibility with scurrilous attacks on the reputations of its conservative-leaning members, particularly Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

That partisan assault continues with a new demand for Thomas and Alito to recuse themselves from an upcoming case because of their friendships with a conservative activist allegedly linked to one of the parties in the case, Courthouse News reported.

In truth, though, the recusal demands against the conservative jurists have little to do with any alleged ethical issues and instead are an obvious and desperate attempt to manipulate the outcome of a case that has the potential to substantially rein in the unaccountable and unelected bureaucratic state.

Recusals demanded of Thomas and Alito

On March 26, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of FCC v. Consumers' Research, which deals with the constitutionality of what is known as the "Universal Service Fund," which is essentially a tax charged by the Federal Communications Commission on telecommunications companies, and subsequently passed on to consumers, the proceeds of which are then used to provide phone and internet access to isolated or rural areas.

According to a trio of leftist judicial activist groups -- Accountable.US, United for Democracy, and Take Back the Court -- Justices Thomas and Alito must recuse themselves from that case because they are close friends with, and allegedly have received undisclosed expensive gifts from, conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo.

Per a report from Accountable.US, Leo is a billionaire who has "bankrolled" millions of dollars in contributions to the Consumers' Research group that, among myriad other things, has challenged the legality of the FCC's Universal Service Fund.

What the activists are saying

"What has not come to light until now is the alarmingly close personal and financial ties between Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in the major backer of one of the parties in the case," Accountable's Executive Director Tony Carrk told the media, according to Courthouse News. "Consumers’ Research is reportedly bankrolled by right-wing legal activist Leonard Leo."

"If a baseball umpire was caught taking free meals from a team vacationing with their star pitcher and having their house paid for by the team's owner, no one would trust them to fairly call balls and strikes," he added. "Judges should be held to at least the same standard."

Likewise, United for Democracy senior advisor Meagan Hatcher-Mays insisted, "This is bigger than just Alito, Thomas, and Leonard Leo. This is about all billionaires who have business pending in front of the court -- whether their name is on the case or not -- their interests are pending in front of the court."

"Given that the Supreme Court is not obligated to follow an enforceable code of conduct, it raises a lot of questions among the American people as to whether we can trust these rulings that come down from the court," she added.

The real reason: Fear of a loss of bureaucratic power

The supposedly problematic relationships between Justices Thomas and Alito and Leonard Leo are not the true reason that leftist judicial activists want Thomas and Alito to recuse themselves from the Consumers' Research case, however, if a fraught-with-anxiety article about the case from leftist media outlet Vox is any indication.

What is really at issue here is what is known as the "nondelegation" doctrine, a seldom-used legal ideal that stipulates it is unlawful for Congress to delegate its constitutional powers, such as the power to impose and collect taxes, to an executive branch agency.

In this case, Congress initially created the Universal Service Fund but then delegated authority on how to collect, distribute, and manage the fund to the FCC, which in turn further delegated that authority to a private corporation it created, the Universal Service Administrative Company.

Per Vox's fearful article, a ruling in favor of Consumers' Research and a revival of the nondelegation doctrine by the Supreme Court's conservative-leaning majority would have vast implications for the plethora of constitutional powers that Congress has undeniably delegated to executive branch agencies over the decades, and would empower federal judges to effectively rein in the unaccountable federal bureaucracy and force elected lawmakers to actually do their jobs.