Time for Clarence Thomas to step down after 'haunting the court for years': NYT editorial board member
Category: News & Politics
Via: john-russell • 2 years ago • 254 commentsBy: Tom Boggioni (Raw Story - Celebrating Years of Independent Journalism)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Stepping out under his own byline, a member of the New York Times Editorial Board used revelations in a Washington Post report that Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, conspired with members of Donald Trump's White House to overturn the 2020 election as a springboard to say the justice needs to resign.
According to Jesse Wegman, Clarence and Ginni Thomas have "done enough damage" since Clarence took his spot on the country's highest court in 1991.
As the columnist noted, Ginni Thomas' antics have not only cast a cloud over her husband's curious sole vote to keep Trump's White House documents secret but also what influence she has had on his 30-year career.
"What did Justice Clarence Thomas know, and when did he know it? " Wegman asked before adding, "The question usually gets directed at politicians, not judges, but it's a fair one in light of the revelation on Thursday that Justice Thomas's wife, Ginni, was working feverishly behind the scenes — and to a far greater degree than she previously admitted — in a high-level effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election."
Graciously conceding that Justice Thomas may not have known that his wife was texting during the insurrection attempt -- and with whom -- the columnist insisted that, nonetheless, the damage is done.
"It sure makes you wonder, doesn't it?" he wrote. "And that's precisely the problem: We shouldn't have to wonder. The Supreme Court is the most powerful judicial body in the country, and yet, as Alexander Hamilton reminded us, it has neither the sword nor the purse as a means to enforce its rulings. It depends instead on the American people's acceptance of its legitimacy, which is why the justices must make every possible effort to appear fair, unbiased and beyond reproach."
Citing a speech by Justice Thomas, where he noted, "I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference. That's a problem. You're going to jeopardize any faith in the legal institutions, " Wegman pointed out, "Bench memo to the justice: You know what jeopardizes public faith in legal institutions? Refusing to recuse yourself from numerous high-profile cases in which your wife has been personally and sometimes financially entangled, as The New Yorker reported in January."
According to Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, "She signed up for Stop the Steal. She was part of the team, and that team had an interest in how the court would rule. That's all I need to know," Gillers explained that his patience with the couple has run out, adding, "they've really abused that tolerance."
"Ms. Thomas's antics, and her husband's refusal to respond appropriately, have been haunting the court for years, but this latest conflagration shouldn't be a close call," Wegman wrote. "The court is in deep trouble these days, pervaded by what Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently called the 'stench' of partisanship — a stench arising in no small part from the Thomases' behavior. It is hard to imagine that the other justices, regardless of their personal politics, aren't bothered."
"Justice Thomas has shown himself unwilling or unable to protect what remains of the court's reputation from the appearance of extreme bias he and his wife have created<" he added before concluding, "He would do the country a service by stepping down and making room for someone who won't have that problem."
You can read his whole opinion piece here.
SmartNews
Tags
Who is online
61 visitors
There is no evidence of any wrong doing on Justice Thomas' part. Still grasping at straws I see.
The failure of any judge to recuse himself from judging cases potentially involving their family members, as Clarence Thomas has refused to do on several occasions, is the worst sort of judicial conduct imaginable for a SC justice!
List the cases and the family members involved.
We'll wait.
Let's not pretend that conservative Republicans wouldn't be launching a full scale political attack if this had been Sonia Sotomayor's husband working in the white house as an advisor for the Biden administration who, after his candidate lost the election said to Biden's Chief of staff:
“We are living through what feels like the end of America,” “Help This Great President stand firm, Ron!!! ... You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority know Republicans and the rabid right are attempting the greatest Heist of our History.”
“Trump crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators (elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship mongers, fake right wing media reporters, etc) are being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days, & will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition.”
and the Presidents Chief of staff reply:
“I will stand firm. We will fight until there is no fight left. Our country is too precious to give up on. Thanks for all you do.”
I have no doubt conservatives would be losing their minds right now if that had been a liberal SCOTUS spouse pushing conspiracy theories, asking to overturn a Presidential election because they feared "the right" destroying America and suggesting right wing media should be arrested and sent to GITMO. But I've also no doubt the right wing won't even see it, their heads are shoved so far up the right wing alternate universe Trump balloon knot they couldn't see their own hypocrisy if their lives depended on it.
Whose spouse worked in the White House?
And let's not pretend that Democrats wouldn't be telling them they're full of shit.
I noticed a political ad was aired on msnbc this morning, extolling the virtues of Clarence Thomas. First I thought, how strange? Then I thought, this is clearly damage control over the predicament his wife has put him in. Then I wondered if he really was hospitalized at all last week, or just in hiding. The timing is all suspect.
damn straight. he probably got a heads up from the reporters wanting a comment before they ran the story. it wouldn't surprise me if this story didn't affect the pathetic republican grandstanding at the confirmation hearings. either way, the optics are pretty bad for trump republicans.
Then I wondered if he really was hospitalized at all last week, or just in hiding. The timing is all suspect.
And NTANON makes their voices heard.
Anyone who thinks Thomas' hospitalization was hoax needs to get more oxygen.
Two things can be true at the same time. He wouldn’t be the first official to hide out in a hospital amid a scandal. Maybe he got the vapors when he learned that the country was about to find out how corrupt he is, and what a whack job his wife is.
I havent seen a single right winger on this site discuss the content of Ginni Thomas text messages yet. I guess deep down they know it is indefensible. A lot of blubbering about her "rights" though, as if she were the victim. More absurdity here.
Very nineteenth century of the Times to Demand a wife subordinate herself to her husband and not have her own life. How dare Clarence Thomas allow his wife to have opinions and express them.
Shameful.
Just more leftist BS trying to force a conservative Constitutionalist judge out; so Brandon can nominate another leftist POS. They are desperate as hell to swing the court to the hard left; and are willing to use any means necessary to do it.
Since their court packing scheme was shot down by Democrats with more foresight.
Somewhat comical that the source Raw story quoted is a extreme left wing publication with mixed credibility ratings in their reporting. The liberal left must be getting desperate because conservative Justice Thomas is not the hard core liberal left ideologue the liberal left Dems want so badly to redress the shift on the court that Trump put in. They are trying to hedge their bets in case Jackson does not the nod. If they can force Thomas out and Jackson does get nominated, that will leave another space open for Biden to nominate and shift the balance back in favor of the liberal left.
Raw Story generally takes stories from other sources. In this case it is an op-ed in the New York Times.
Complain to the New York Times. Raw Story is just the messenger in this case.
That does not mean they are right or what they are saying is true.
Clarence Thomas is not being asked to resign because of his wife's views. His retirement is required today because he obliterated a slew of judicial ethics by not recusing himself from ruling on the cases directly effecting his wife...
See the difference? I believe you can if you will...
What cases affect his wife?
So I guess you would want justice Kagan to resign because she refused to recuse herself on a case she was directly involved with and had interest in before becoming a justice.
When Kagan and Sotomayor recuse themselves from cases they tried or help make policy when they were a lawyer; or tried when they were a judge previously as part of a lower court; then the left can talk.
So where are your calls for Kagan's and Sotomayor's resignations?
Lol... wishcasting isn't reality.
Having an opinion about politics is not the same as being affected by a case. Supreme Court justices and their families are allowed to have an interest in politics - even an enthusiastic one - just like anybody else. It's not like it's a surprise that either Mr. or Mrs. Thomas would support Trump in an election.
The same place the calls for Roberts', Gorsuch's, Alito's and Thomas' are: NOWHERE.
The fact is, Roberts could state at any time that Supreme Court Justices, including himself, will be from this point on be under the same recusal rules as every other Federal Judge. Roberts has refused to do so claiming that it's 'unwarranted'.
Not that Roberts has done anything to ensure that the Federal Judiciary is actually held accountable to those rules mind you. It's rare that any Federal Judge is called out for failure to appropriately recuse themselves.
No, it isn't required.
Your spin on this falls flat.
Can you point out what laws she broke? This should be easy with all of the howling the left is doing; yet there are still no charges against her. It doesn't matter what she is involved in, if it isn't against the law. Not being a toady to the left isn't a crime.
As for Gillers BS. It is his opinion; to which he is entitled. He has no more authority than anyone else.
It DOES if it brings into question Justice Thomas' impartiality. The statute reads:
28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
So you see Ronin, it DOES matter what she is involved in.
Another FAIL.
No, no, it doesn't.
You have to prove that she has influence over her husband and his decisions.
No proof and you are SOL.
It seems that the concept of 'impartiality might reasonably be questioned' is beyond you.
Carry on.
Did Hillary ever defer to Bubba Bill?
The conservatives attack back by saying she is allowed to have her views.
That is fine and dandy yet what I did notice is not one of them even talk about what she was saying, what she texted, etc.
Complete silence on that aspect.
Have no interest in what she says, or does.
Good to know. Now if we ever have a Liberal leaning SC justice that has a spouse that stays political and extreme and keeps pushing conspiracy theories you all will be silent....
It does not matter what she said or texted. She is entitled to her own opinions and to express those opinions as she wishes.
As I said above. If it doesn't matter, if it ever happens with a Liberal leaning judge, I expect you all to be quiet about it.
What does that have to do with the topic at hand.
Hint...nothing.
You are this close to an ignore with off the wall tactics.
If you cannot grasp that this is about the spouse of a sitting justice, I can't help you.
What the fuck does your comment on another thread have anything to do at all with what I said.
Not a damn thing. So so long.
Ignored.
[deleted]
Guess what, you just joined the club.
No worries, thought I was already there ....
It is what it is.
This is what some here call an “adult conversation.”
[deleted]
Why? You're not.
Liberal and conservative justices routinely recuse themselves to avoid even a hint of judicial impropriety. That Clarence Thomas has not in some cases he was aware could implicate his own wife is very serious judicial misconduct and grounds for his disbarment.
How do you know the liberal members spouses do not influence their decisions already?
This is insane. It has no basis in reality.
I sure would like to know what political consequences Chuck thinks a supreme court justice can get
And I thought it was just me LOL. One lady here sent me personal chats messages to tell me several times to fuck off, put me on ignore for a month and then let me out of her own personal jail to harass me some more. I have yet to see her post anything that actually adds to the conversation. I fully expect a few to come to her defense.
Congress can impeach any federal office holder.
You really think there is a shot at that happening? You really believe that is what Chuck meant, doing something that has not been done in almost 200 years because of how they voted on one issue?
Seems more like left wing loons trying to make political points with their loony base and the comments here lead to some credence to that theory.
It is against the law and judicial ethics for any judge anyway at any time to not recuse him or herself from hearing any cases that could conceivably involve their family members. Clarence Thomas should be charged, tried, convicted, impeached and removed in utter disgrace, if he will not retire immediately...
Now that is some serious wishful thinking. I would pay to see the looney left try that on a black supreme court justice and see the blowback it would cause. Unless I am mistaken the senate would have to have a two thirds majority vote for him to be impeached so any movement by the congress to try this would just be seen as another waste of tax payor money to embark on a witch hunt with absolutely no chance of success. I would think this would change more votes in the direction they would not be hoping for.
Nah, that’s their M.O. for anyone who has the temerity to disagree with them [....Deleted]
[And to all participating - further meta will result in this thread being locked.]
Specifics?
Or is this just more unhinged partisanship?
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
Thomas was the one lonely only single inexplicable and inexcusable descenting vote in the very Supreme Court case that forced the release of his own wife's and the Trump administration's papers and communications regarding Trump's January 6th Insurrection to the Congressional Investigation Committee. In that case both law and judicial ethics required Thomas to recuse himself. He did not. He showed his corrupt impartial ass by voting to protect Trumpy, his wife Ginni Thomas and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows instead. These are known documented facts.
This is a lie, which has been explained many times. Her texts were handed over to committee before the case was even heard. Say it very slowly until you understand, the case Thomas dissented in had zero, nada, zilch to do with the texts that were leaked by the committee.
John likes to talk about the problem with QANON. Maybe he should worry about problems a little closer to home. [Deleted]
[deleted]
Sean, Thomas almost certainly knew his wife had communicated with Meadows, and possibly others in Trump's inner circle. We dont know up til today whether Meadows turned over everything, and neither did Clarence Thomas when he voted to keep those communications secret. He has no reasonable defense for christ's sake. He should recuse from EVERY case and issue related to Jan 6, since his wife is clearly implicated in the entire subject matter.
So now you are just skipping past the lie that the he dissented in the "Supreme Court case that forced the release of his own wife's and the Trump administration's papers and communication" I guess when it makes your enemies look bad, you are fine with batshit crazy conspiracies.
We dont know up til today whether Meadows turned over everything,
Now we are onto other conspiracies, premised on Meadows committing a crime and failing to turn over documents. It's always another conspiracy.
since his wife is clearly implicated in the entire subject matter.
What crime do you think she committed? Texting stupid things is embarrassing, not criminal. If there's a credible basis for it, her records can be subpoenaed. That hasn't happened.
I feel sorry for you in that you have to defend indefensible positions every day.
The scandal here is not the illegality or lack of it, it is the simple fact that a notable conservative player, Ginni Thomas, is a deranged far right conspiracy nut. Its not just a matter of her saying something stupid as if it were a slip of the tongue.
How do you know the liberal members spouses do not influence their decisions already?
Because if there were ever even a whiff of impropriety you guys would be all over it like stink on shit. There never is because the liberal wing of the SCOTUS knows better than to behave like Clarence Thomas’s nut job wife.
Bad for Ginni Thomas. How you believe that excuses lying about Clarence Thomas is something you'll have to work out for yourself.
What has Justice Thomas' wife been charged with?
I charge her with being a deranged anti-American nutcase. What are you going to make of it?
Yeah, anyone can accuse another of anything in the internet. And the charge which means absolutely NOTHING doesn't even have to be true OR make any sense, as amply demonstrated daily here.
And a few people ARE capable of separating a man and his wife's actions, although many aren't capable.
Let me explain further.
What has she been charged with that actually has merit and MATTERS?
[deleted]
That is only against the law in the minds of TDS driven nut jobs living in their own little realities.
U.S. Constitution - 1st Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech
Wow - don't see anywhere in the 1st Amendment that prohibits what folks can talk about or what they text, etc.. - wow - complete silence - amazing.
Again, read what I said to two others. Sheesh...
You all are glossing over what she was actually saying and doing.
I never said she couldn't talk or speak. Content matters, which you all are still silent on.
And I will say once again...If this ever happens to a Liberal leaning justice, I expect you all to say it is ok.
So me where it says the content of what she says and believes is prohibited.
Where in the world did I say it was prohibited?
And I thought you didn't care what she said.
I don't care what she said. She has a right to say it but now you want someone else to suffer consequences for the content that someone else said. So me where her content is not allowed or where Justice Thomas is responsible for her words
Where in the world did I say I wanted others to have consequences.
I didn't so stop making things up.
I made one single point that seems to have gone over all of your heads.
Six of the nine Justices are conservative. Five of those six voted with the three liberal one to make Trump’s communications available to congress for the Jan. 6 investigations. Of those five, zero of them have a spouse that attended the Jan. 6 festivities. The single conservative Justice that is married to a Q minded conservative activist who was present there and sent dozens of conspiracy addled text messages to the WH Chief of Staff voted in dissent of ALL of his fellow Justices. Is this becoming any clearer for you yet?
Justice Thomas is entitled to his own opinions to. Just because they don't agree with yours is irrelavent.
So you are ok with the highest court in the land being controlled by judges who think democrats run a satanic global cabal of pedophiles and baby eaters. I guess we know which side of the Q fence you live on.
I said that where?
[Deleted] you're reading what isn't written.
I should think that if your wife followed conspiracy theories straight out of the QAnon doctrine as closely and publicly as Ginni does, you would know just how nutty she is, and I would hope that it would be a matter of great concern for you. Families across the country are struggling with spouses, mothers, fathers, etc. who have fallen into this ridiculous rabbit hole, and relationships are being permanently destroyed over it - but not the Clarence / Ginni dynamic. They boast about being besties. Conservatives should be embarrassed beyond belief to be defending this garbage.
[Deleted]
Can you provide a list of the Justices who think that?
Yet there IS a statute that requires Judge Thomas to recuse himself if his 'impartiality might reasonably be questioned' and not even you can deny that his wife's POLITICAL actions have caused just that. No one is 'abridging' Ginni's freedom of speech, the statute doesn't affect HER.
And that statute would be? Provide a link.
The one I have been citing for 2 days now.
I did, YESTERDAY. Try to keep up.
Sorry but the statute you linked to does not apply to SCOTUS. OOPS
all federal judges, Supreme Court Justices are not required to follow the Code of Conduct for United States judges – a binding code of ethics that ensures neutrality and transparency in our judiciary,” said Johnson, a former county magistrate judge.Jul 29, 2021
Then WHY do the actual Justices cite that statute in memorandum addressing Motions to recuse?
THAT was written by Justice Scalia: 03-475, Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D. C., Memorandum of Justice Scalia (supremecourt.gov)
Oh and BTFW, Scalia was among 7 Justices that signed a pledge that stated that they WOULD follow the Judicial Code of Conduct.
They are not required to. They can if they wish but it is not mandatory that they do. The statute you stated die not cover SCOTUS. Just admit it and go on with your life.
BTW did you even bother to open and read the link I provided?
Who were the others? How many are currently on the court?
arkpdx, though I did not agree with Scalia ideologically, I'm pretty fucking sure he knew the law, ESPECIALLY those that he was required to follow as a Justice, better than staff blogger at the NCC.
How would my answer matter when you don't even believe Scalia?
Where did I say I don't believe him. I said he was absolutely able to decide for himself that he would abide by the law even though he did not have to.
So we have somebody running an OPINION piece about how somebody else should resign because of the OPINION of somebody else.
Lol .... it worked with Breyer so now they thought they would try it on Thomas.
Funny, funny as hell.
2 yes or no question for you.
yes
Not on everything. This is going to be hard for you to hear but my wife is an adult with the ability to make her own decisions and have her own opinions. You know, unlike many of you on the left.
Now what does that have to do with this being an opinion piece?
OMG, my wife is just like that, too!
Imagine in 2022, women having their OWN opinions and agendas completely independent of a man!
Thank you.
But you do support him/her, just don't agree with her every time. So a normal relationship.
There is no reason to assume the Thomas' don't have the same type of relationship. Meaning he will support her, even though he may not agree with her, and that there are different levels of that support.
Would that be correct as far as your relationship with your spouse? I always support my wife, to one degree or another, but may not always agree with her.
The trouble with this is that Clarence Thomas' oath requires absolute impartiality. It is not a normal thing you see in a family setting, but for his job it is required. It is also required that if he cannot guarantee that impartiality, he must recuse himself from any cases that apply.
The following article lists just 3 examples of this NOT INCLUDING the current 1/6 ruling.
A Brief History of Clarence Thomas' Ethical Entanglements
My point is that he already has a history of NOT recusing himself on rulings that he or his wife, are personally effected by. He should know better, but fails to act properly. Not he is seeing the added conflict when that ruling is directly effecting his wife, yet once again he is failing to do the proper thing and recuse himself.
What specific case involves his wife as a plaintiff or defendant?
And, somehow you think he can't separate his job from his family? Or that he can't be impartial? Seems to me you want him to resign because he hasn't done what YOU think he should be doing.
Another silly question from you, since nowhere did I claim she was a plaintiff or defendant.
Each time you comment, without reading the post you are commenting about, you look more and more foolish.
Of course not, which is why judges have the option of recusal. They may be able to keep them separate, or just believe they are keeping them separate, but recusal removes any possibility of it, which is why it is expected on any case that personally involves the judge or justice.
Now you're looking foolish. Where did I say he should resign?
Another dumbfuck claim from you.
I didn't say you did--but perhaps actually READING my post would have informed you otherwise?
I am sorry you can't grasp the concept that calling for him to recuse himself is stupid in cases not involving his wife. Which is what so many left-wing yahoos are doing.
Push the narrative at all costs.
They have no shame that’s for sure .....
It's touching to watch you people go through the charade that Ginni or Clarence Thomas are victims here. She is a traitor and he likely isnt far behind, since they are "best friends".
I call bull on both.
We don't do "guilt by association" here--or at least reasonable, sane adults don't.
So what are you complaining about? And you claim I'm looking foolish.
Protesting is not a treasonous offense unless you want to call Hillary and all her supporters that rioted after the 2016 election traitors also.
And a double dumbfuck claim from you. Let me quote...
If you are just going to post lies, then just go away. I am tired of dealing with your childish claims and deflections.
Some folks have bandied the words "traitor" and "treason" around so damn much they have lost meaning, much like the same folks bandy "racism" around constantly.
<sigh> Another right winger refusing to read. What language would you like me to translate it to for you?
I posted no lies, and challenge you to document whatever it is you claim I lied about.
Since we both already know you can't, go away now.
I have already explained why the actions of the big liars corresponds to definitions of "traitor" , and I'm not going to keep doing it indefinitely for people who are not paying attention.
A person who betrays a principle is a traitor to that principle. Ginni Thomas has betrayed the principle of respecting United States free and fair election results. She asked Mark Meadows to help overthrow the 2020 election results based on no evidence whatsoever. She is every bit a traitor.
Same old same old.
You lose again. What is that , 632 days in a row now?
I never knew or even imagined that you had a sense of humor!
So you have no point and resort to the insults.
Thats because, like much else we see, it is beyond you.
That post appears delusional.
Not conservatives. However, we have seen time and time again liberals on here lumping in every conservative for the actions of a few, most recently the idiots that rioted at the Capitol.
If we use liberal logic (in which we have to drop our IQ by double digits), then every liberal is just like the rioters of the summer of 2020
Intelligent English with proof would be a big help, cuz what you wrote ain't it.
So, using your criteria, Hillary Clinton and many of her supporters are guilty of treason since they betrayed the principle of respecting United States free and fair election results by rioting in the streets of several US cities demanding the results be changed, by attempting to coerce and bribe members of the Electoral College to change their votes and by constantly claiming she won because she got more of the popular vote. When will she be arrested?
There is no "appearance" to it. It was delusional
Now, now, you must remember that the use of "logic" is strictly one way and can not possibly be used in any way to describe progressives or liberals
Keep your hallucinations to yourself please.
You first!
A federal judge ruled TODAY that Trump likely committed felonies with his "stop the steal" plans and lies.
Show us a similar court decision about Clinton. You are on the clock.
Likely does not mean did. Did that judge actually hear any evidence or did he just go by what he heard in the biased media.
BTW you can put your click where the sun don't shine right next to your head.
[deleted]
Rather just sound like one than be like the lefties here and actually be a fool.
Pretty fancy way of saying "I can't document anything I claimed", but then again, we already knew that!
Well, it’s just sad contemplating if all the partisan haters here truly do hate like they speak or if it’s just a game they play on the internet for some fucked up reason.
I used to believe it was the latter. I get less and less sure about that based on observation here on NT.
Less and less sure .....
Are you ever going to stop whining about "TDS" or should we just give up on that?
Should no one care that the wife of a sitting Supreme Court justice is a deranged far right conspiracy nut who tries to influence high government officials to advance her causes, or should we just say "fuck it" ?
Where is the conservative defense of Ginni Thomas ? Or is there none ?
Nah, it’s the last resort “nanny nanny boo boo” intellect gambit. It gets dropped regularly by those who lack the ability to carry on an unbiased adult conversation.
Did I bring up TDS? No I did not.
But once again ..... you prove the point of how obsessed you are with Trump. It completely negates your ability to properly reason.
Completely.
You use a lot of words to say nothing, that is your m.o. . No one cares about your TDS rants anymore.
I guess you haven’t been paying attention to this seed eh?
Lol .... apparently you’re operating under the assumption that I care what you or anyone else here thinks.
More defective reasoning .....
She doesn't need a defense. She has done nothing wrong. She is in her right to believe what she does and to associate who she chooses to.
Ridiculous.
She is a prominent person in the conservative movement and the Republican Party and she is on record calling for the overthrow of the 2020 presidential election, and she is promoting insane conspiracy theories and crackpot far right personalities. That is a big deal. Free speech has nothing to do with this.
Exactly. Unless someone somewhere charges her with an actual crime, this is all just fodder for the idiots on CNN and MSNBC and the other idiots who watch and believe everything those outlets tell them to think.
One thing most folks here seem totally incapable of doing:
Separating a man and his wife.
Some wish to act as they are one in the same, and I pity the FOOLS who are incapable of seeing any difference between two grown ass adults.
You people are so cluelessly tiresome.
And you people are so damn predictably boring and wrong.
But thanks for confirming that your best and only argument is a personal attack because you have nothing else to offer.
What has she done that was/ is illegal? When and how were her free speech taken away?
You are boring the shit out of me.
Nothing at all.
Some like to imagine all sorts of crimes, but when the shit hits the fan, WHERE ARE ALL THE CHARGES????????????????
You too.
And yet .... here you are ....
Piss off.
No one is here for YOUR fucking entertainment. Learn that.
How boring would YOUR life HAVE to be to subject yourself day in and day out to "boring" posts???
LMAO!
So when is sentencing?
Oh that is right. There isn't any sentencing. The judge was not ruling on any criminal case against Trump; but on whether or not to turn over 101 Eastman emails to the Jan 6th committee. The judge is also from the ultra liberal Federal Court in California- no surprise Democrats took their case there.
Then I am happily doing my job. Maybe when all that shit is out of you you might see the world in a more sane way.
In your personal opinion perhaps, but not in the legal sense which is what really matters. She has not been charged with anything except in the liberal court of public opinion.
I wonder how many of his decisions were actually hers. She looks like a real ball buster and probably carries his around in her purse.
Lol ..... I guess ball busters are only okay as long as they are liberal eh?
The left loved Michelle Obama and Hillary ......
More batshit conspiracies from NTANON.
Do you wonder how many decisions Justice Breyer's wife made for him?
I know we like to imagine that Supreme Court justices or their families are not emotionally invested in politics, but they are. They care a great deal about the outcomes of elections or controversial political debates. They have a right to those feelings just like any American. If Mrs. Thomas is ever before the Court as a party (like she was charged with some crime) then yes, obviously Justice Thomas should recuse himself. But just picking a side in the whole Stop the Steal thing isn't quite enough.
Look, enough with the "both sides "-ism.
This woman advocated the overthrow of the presidential election and promoted absurd and dangerous conspiracy theories. She has a "free speech" right to speak her mind but that is hardly the end of it. She has great influence over a Supreme Court member and is considered influential within the Republican Party. It is ridiculous that people think they can dismiss all this on the basis of "free speech".
Isn’t Hang Mike Pence just free speech too?
Yet they can, and are doing just that even if you don't agree with them. That is how things work in the good ole USA
Why not? All of the Dems/Libs on NT blast anyone else on an opposing party when they try to use their "free speech".
Never gonna happen. When it comes to politics, I have an open mind and you don’t. How about you get over it?
So do a lot of people. Are justices supposed to start ignoring their spouses? Friends? Children? It’s time to face reality.
Been 'observing' Thomas for years--decades actually. And through it all, my summation of him, his actions, (or lack of actions) general demeanor, and personality remind me of Steven at Candyland.
Nobody knows who 'Steven at Candyland' was, huh?
Maybe they just don't want to respond to your racist comment.
Never saw the movie? You pro Steven too?
Did I say that?
Did I say that?
Wife of supreme court justice in favor of overturning a lawful election. Not a good look at all.
Nothin to see here. Just another example of far left loons trying to cancel someone they don't like. I guess they don't realize you can't cancel someone with a lifetime appointment.
You think its fine that the best friend of a Supreme Court justice is a Q Anon nut and far right extremist ? Thats interesting.
Are you still claiming to be "right down the center" ?
Life is too short for me to track or investigate who the friends of people are. I have better things to do.
I have answered that question before.
The gop embraces pervs and insurrectionists.
Clarence Thomas and his wife have publicly declared they are best friends numerous times. YOU dont have to keep track of anything.
Your weak attempt to say "nothing to see here" is ludicrous.
Let me try again. Life is too short to concern myself or care at all who the friends of people are. It is also too short for me to worry, or even know what a supreme court justice and his wife say about each other or even if a supreme court justice is married or not. I have better things to do. If you feel the need to do that than feel free, I won't judge you.
Your weak attempt to make people care about things because you think they should is ridiculous and sad.
I asked you - You think its fine that the best friend of a Supreme Court justice is a Q Anon nut and far right extremist ?
I didnt ask you what life is too short for.
I would have to have details about the two people in question, not just take your word for it. I don't go with hypotheticals like you seem to desire me to and I refuse to be bullied into doing so. Not only that but there is no actual definition of " Q Anon nut and far right extremist" , just your opinion of what you think one is. Again, life is too short for me to care enough to look for all the details in order to make an informed decision on the people in question or deal in hypotheticals that I don't care about. Sorry if you don't like my answer or I don't bite the bait you seemed to be hoping I would bite on, I guess you are going to have to make up an answer for me that suits what you think I think
.
Both Q Anon beliefs and Ginni Thomas words about it are well documented. Just say you have nothing worthwhile to offer on the topic and I will leave you alone.
Ok, you have nothing to say on the topic of Ginni Thomas being a Q Anon nut. Fair enough.
In light of that though, you should probably stop calling the left "loons" though if you still care about being seen as "right down the center".
Actually I don't care about what I am seen as. That being said there are plenty far right loons as well although they are outnumbered by left loons on NT as far as I am concerned. Don't confuse my comments of far left loons above as a comment on the democratic party. I am still hoping the moderates kick them all back to their safe spaces so the adult democrats can take their party back.
Ok, you have nothing to say on the topic of Ginni Thomas being a Q Anon nut. Fair enough.
They’re too busy labeling the centrist members of SCOTUS as extreme radical leftists.
If you haven't an opinion, care or stake in the conversation---why are you here?
I have an opinion which I stated above.
Nothin to see here. Just another example of far left loons trying to cancel someone they don't like. I guess they don't realize it is almost impossible to cancel a supreme court justice.
How can ANY person who has been married for a number of years NOT be influenced by their spouse, subconsciously at least? Thomas should resign.
Sorry but no. Not until it can be proven that his wife's crazy ideas has made him vote in certain ways or it can be proven to overshadow what / how he thinks. At this point it's all partisan supposition as to the impact his wife has on his thinking and convictions, bonded with a desire to have President Biden be able to appoint another judge to SCOTUS.
Of course the Democrats could always try to impeach him, that could remove him from SCOTUS. They have nine more months roughly to impeach and convict. Why don't you ask the Democrats on this board to start a letter writing campaign to Congress to get them to focus on this. Might be a better use of their time... heh
Two reasons why not. 1) I make up my own mind what to do, and I see no reason to do as you suggest. and 2) They really wouldn't pay any attention to what I would ask them to do anyway so it would be a waste of my time.
Please answer one simple question:
Is it reasonable to question Judge Thomas' impartiality in cases where it can be documented that his wife has used her political influence to steer policy on the issue?
So, nobody who is on the Supreme Court should be married?
It is not about being married. It is about Thomas not recusing himself from the case involving his wife as is required by law so him not doing so is a serious breach of judicial ethics. Does that help?
Absolutely. You took the words out of my fingertips.
He’s not “required by law” to do anything like that. Recusal is his prerogative. And currently, there is no case involving his wife anyway. So there is no law being broken and no ethics rule being violated. Does that help you?
Then you’re just as hysterically wrong as JBB.
[deleted]
Laughably, totally laughably, we now see "conservatives" saying nothing has been "proven" yet.
The fact that Ginni Thomas sent these text messages to Mark Meadows is NOT in dispute. As we are hearing, Meadows himself gave them to the Jan 6 committee. Unless you believe Meadows is sabotaging Ginni Thomas, these were her words.
She advocates overthrowing the election results. She advocates for the insane woman Sidney Powell. She promotes other Q Anon conspiracies. This is a woman (Thomas) who is supposedly near the top of the "conservative" food chain in Washington DC. Her husband is on the short list of the most powerful people in government. She herself is described as an ideological leader of the right wing.
It is both bizarre and absurd to make excuses for her. This is a tip of the iceberg moment, not a moment to underplay the meaning of this.
I don't see people making excuses for her. What I see is "conservatives" stating that there is no proof that Justice Thomas has altered his rulings based on her. All the "liberals" have done is shout conjecture and supposition but offered no proof or facts that is has occurred. If getting Thomas off the court is that important to you I suggest start a letter writing campaign to Congress to tell them to investigate and impeach Justice Thomas. They still have nine months to get it done. Might be a better use of their time too.
I dont expect this to result in Thomas being forced off the court and I dont think many liberals expect that.
The issue here is not Clarence Thomas, although I think his wifes influence on him should be looked into. Outside of illegal behavior on his part I dont think there is a mechanism to remove him.
The issue here is the rot at the heart of the Republican Party. The spouse of a Supreme Court justice is at the heart of establishment DC politics. They are not outliers or fringe players. If she were a fringe player it is extremely unlikely the presidents chief of staff would have communicated with her so much.
This episode shows us just how much "trumpism" and QAnon have infiltrated the Republican Party and made it unfit to lead the country. Unfit.
That's simply not true. I posted the statute here:
Based on my reading of the statute, involvement by his wife or laws being broken are both irrelevant.
Please answer my question @:
Lol. You think Congress can dictate when a Supreme Court justice recuses himself?
Do a little more research.
Yes, and herself too Sean.
Follow your own fucking advice Sean.
For a start, I suggest that you review Supreme Court Justices' replies to 'Motions to recuse' to the court. In every one that I read, the Justice cited the statute that I linked and acknowledged that statute as the standard they must follow.
Here, I'll give you a start for your research:
THAT was written by Justice Scalia: 03-475, Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D. C., Memorandum of Justice Scalia (supremecourt.gov)
So laugh it up Sean but don't try to pretend you know WTF you're talking about. You don't.
I've been mulling for a while over that comment of yours, Tacos!, and not being versed in American law I was probably wrong to agree with a comment about it being against the law, but whether or not there is a filed case against his wife for her obviously very strong beliefs and actions I stand with the fact that he must surely have been at least unconsciously influenced by her, and the only hysteria is your comment, not mine nor jbb's.
And that law would be?
Be aware that the ethics laws that pertain to lower court judged do not apply to SCOTUS.
I’m aware of the statute, but a Supreme Court justice determines his or her own need to recuse and the decision is not reviewable. Perhaps the most notorious example of the last 20 years was Justice Scalia going duck hunting with Dick Cheney when he had a case before the court. And the Chief Justice backed him up.
I feel like you must not understand what the word hysteria means. I’m not the one upset about the fact that a Supreme Court justice might be talking to his wife about the issues of the day.
Actually, from what I've read, the Chief Justice can review recusals.
Which just so happens to be that exact SAME case that I block quoted AND provided a link for in my prior comment.
I'm fully aware that the word "hysterical" has two diverse meanings, and IMO neither of them applied to my comment, but I'm beginning to think that both of them applied to yours.
Seriously, you're making arguments that were refuted yesterday. Please review the comments and come back when you've caught up with the discussion.
Oh and perhaps now the most notorious case will be Thomas' failure to recuse in the Trump case.
We need to at least have an actual case first. Until that happens, there’s nothing to talk about.
Trump v. Thompson is an actual case.
Why?
Ginni Thomas is a private citizen entitled to think & say what she wants.
I am certain that Justice Thomas will continue to make decisions based on the Constitution and via impartiality as he always has.
So is Ice Cream versus My Belly, (lol) but that doesn’t mean there is a conflict of interest requiring a Supreme Court justice to recuse himself. The justice has a Duty to Sit - especially on the Supreme Court, because he can’t be replaced.
I expect the justice will continue to sit until he has a compelling reason not to. I also imagine he might have some conversations with his colleagues and the Chief Justice on the matter. But then again, perhaps not. We are, after all talking about a justice of the Supreme Court with more than 30 years experience in that role. Who is going to tell him they have a better understanding of the law and legal ethics? You? Me? Some guy on CNN?
Any judge or justice is not expected to recuse on the grounds that there is some public controversy surrounding the case. Justice Thomas may well end up recusing himself, but he’s not going to rush to that judgment the way so many liberal politicians or commentators have - in my opinion, out of partisanship. I am sure he will let the facts develop, consider the matter carefully and recuse only as a last resort - which is what it should be, a last resort. The Court of Public Opinion is just not how these things are decided.
The Justice has a duty to recuse via statute.
All those years on the court didn't stop Thomas from failing to report his wife's income for 13 YEARS as required by law. It took exposure by the watchdog group, Common Cause, to help Thomas to 'better understand' the law.
Well since I haven't argued that they are, that is a strawman.
Secondly, the case I cited has already been ruled on and Thomas was the only one to dissent.
Well I didn’t say you did, so that is a straw man. Next, we’ll all chant nanny nanny horsey. The fact is that there is a lot of public talk about it - including here - and people seem to think that if they bitch enough about it, that will influence him. I think I can promise you it won’t, but more importantly, legal ethics - including from Supreme Court justices make clear that controversy alone will not make the decision.
We’ve been over this. I explained to you already that it’s his call. That’s just reality. I don’t yet know if he will be in a position where he should recuse himself, but right this second, we don’t appear to be at that point. If we get there, it will be his decision. I don’t how else to explain it to you. Accept it or don’t. I don’t care.
Also, in case you’re not aware, the Duty to Sit is considered a real thing, too. I didn’t just make that up.
Do you not appreciate that Thomas does not require texts by his wife to be influenced into supporting Trump?
And that involves Justice Thomas's wife how? Why should he have recused himself
Why do you keep trying to interject the term 'controversy'? The statute I have been talking about clearly cites questions of impartiality and Thomas' wife has caused just that.
There is nothing about this issue that you need to explain to me Tacos.
Do you not appreciate that your comment is non-responsive to what I actually posted?
It’s my observation of the state of affairs. I would hope we could agree the matter is controversial.
Seems like you do. You don’t seem to understand my point of view and you keep asking me questions.
As is the response to my comment about Mrs. Thomas’s texts, which you replied to with this question.
Sure.
WTF does that have to do with you citing it as the reason for recusal? Hint: Nothing.
Understanding your POV hasn't a fucking thing to do with the understanding the issue.
You get what you give Tacos.
Oh and your comment was actually about Justice Thomas, not his wife's texts.
You’re wrong. When the Scalia/Cheney case happened, Scalia issued a 20-something page memo on his decision. Part of it was to face the argument that the Sierra Club was making, which was basically that because it was in all the newspapers and so many were calling for Scalia to recuse, that somehow was an argument in favor of it.
As you might imagine, Scalia found that approach absurd. That’s my point here. The fact that many loud voices are making a big deal out of this is no argument for recusal.
Then stop asking me questions about it.
You aren't MY POV Tacos. The requirement to recuse has nothing to do with controversy, is has to do with appearances and/or conflict of interest.
No shit? Tell me all about it Tacos. Here, maybe this link will help you:
I didn't ask you a question about the issue, I asked you about your ridiculous comment. Members asking and answering questions about comments is how this shit works.
I said you were wrong in response to you telling me I was focused on the controversy for no reason. I think know better than you if I have a reason for saying something. So I stand by that assessment. You were wrong. If you really think you’re going to tell me that I am saying something for no reason, then you have reached a level of hubris that makes conversation impossible.
I’ve tried already. You’re not interested, clearly, and frankly, your toxic comments have gotten pretty old.
I didn’t say you did. I said you asked my about my POV, which you seem to agree to. Your insistence on arguing over this makes no sense.
Then I'm NOT wrong because as everyone can see for themselves, I never said you said something for "no reason".
You failed miserably.
I'm interested in facts. Have any?
How you interpret my comments is on you Tacos.
Yet here you are insisting on arguing about bullshit misinterpretations of my comments.
Carry on.
I’m through trying to be nice to you. We’re done here.
Argumentative is the word you are looking for.
Remember what Strom Thurmond uttered the first time Ginny and Clarence entered the senate chamber on his first day of confirmation?
I have no idea - what was it?
"Fuck this shit" ?
How about a link?
[Deleted]
"He's married to a white woman?"
"Okay, thanks."