Is Ginni Thomas A Threat To The Supreme Court?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes! She supported overthrowing an election!!

And still the “moderate” democrats stand by her and the Supreme Court!

What? I am a moderate Democrat. I am also a feminist who fully supports women being politically active outside of the views of a spouse. Women can have their own careers and interests that are completely independent from your husband’s. But 1/6 is beyond the pale. She was using her contacts, gained through her husband, to support overturning an election…. and a fair one at that!! She supported and tried to facilitate an insurrection!

Correction: helped facilitate an insurrection

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes! She supported overthrowing an election!!

And still the “moderate” democrats stand by her and the Supreme Court!

Who are these moderate democrats standing by her? Did I miss something?

+1, where are you getting that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes! She supported overthrowing an election!!

And still the “moderate” democrats stand by her and the Supreme Court!

You mean republicans, right?

[Anonymous]

PP probably meant “moderate” Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes! She supported overthrowing an election!!

And still the “moderate” democrats stand by her and the Supreme Court!

You mean republicans, right?

DP but yes that’s the joke.

I actually am a moderate Democrat (if you’re a Repo I’m a flaming liberal and if you’re really progressive I look like a Republican) and ordinarily I do agree that spouses should get to do the kind of work that’s meaningful to them. Ginni and Clarence have made it clear over the years that he would never recuse when he had conflicts of interest and he didn’t and it’s been clear for years that she was using his connections. He should have been off that court years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what is going on with Meadow's and his committee referral to the DOJ?

There is much we don't know yet.

It would be nice if Garland moved faster than a snail on qualudes.

[Anonymous]

This is so off the hook, I just can’t!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


You mean republicans, right?

DP but yes that’s the joke.

I actually am a moderate Democrat (if you’re a Repo I’m a flaming liberal and if you’re really progressive I look like a Republican) and ordinarily I do agree that spouses should get to do the kind of work that’s meaningful to them. Ginni and Clarence have made it clear over the years that he would never recuse when he had conflicts of interest and he didn’t and it’s been clear for years that she was using his connections. He should have been off that court years ago.

Exactly. Can't Supreme Court justices be impeached? I know it is a really high bar, but does Clarence Thomas really want to go down in history as an impeached Supreme Court justice? The Dems should give him the option of either resigning for health reasons or being impeached. Would love to see Senate republicans have to defend against a constant media stream of Ginni Thomas' unhinged Q text rants and the fact that Thomas wouldn't recuse.

[Anonymous]

And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.

So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.

So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.

As you know the Republican party has no intention of stopping that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.

So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.

So here's the thing. American democracy is at stake. Faith in our democratic system is at stake. People attempted to interrupt the certification of the election results. If holding them to account is somehow considered "further[ing] a political party's agenda," then that just shows you how far gone the Republicans are. Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.

So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.

So here's the thing. American democracy is at stake. Faith in our democratic system is at stake. People attempted to interrupt the certification of the election results. If holding them to account is somehow considered "further[ing] a political party's agenda," then that just shows you how far gone the Republicans are. Jesus.

I read the PP as suggesting impeachment, impeachment that PP admitted would not be successful, for the purpose of swaying the public and "keeping things in the public eye." That itself would be putting our democratic government at stake. It is precisely what we ALL need to not do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.

So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.

So here's the thing. American democracy is at stake. Faith in our democratic system is at stake. People attempted to interrupt the certification of the election results. If holding them to account is somehow considered "further[ing] a political party's agenda," then that just shows you how far gone the Republicans are. Jesus.

Are you suggesting that Clarence Thomas attempted to interrupt the certification of election results and he should be impeached on that basis? If not, how would him being impeached bring accountability for the actions you mentioned?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.

So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.

So the Ds should just look the other way? Disregard corruption because it might benefit them?

Ridiculous given how the Rs have actually abused their powers for their own benefit and to support illegal behavior.