Is Ginni Thomas A Threat To The Supreme Court?

[Anonymous]

I think my favourite text is when Ginni, the wife of a Supreme Court justice, was whining about 'the elites' in that tone deaf way that characterizes many right wingers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think my favourite text is when Ginni, the wife of a Supreme Court justice, was whining about 'the elites' in that tone deaf way that characterizes many right wingers.

Just imagine when her laptop shows up at a pawn shop. It’ll be lit.

[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 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.

I'm not suggesting that nothing be done. I'm supportive of the 1/6 commission, and any prosecutions that result. I'm also supportive of everybody talking about it publicly, etc. What I am not in favor of doing is impeaching a justice "for show" and to create spectacle.

[Anonymous]

It's just so appalling and egregious that this is happening - and there is literally no feasible mechanism for any accountability! Yeah sure impeachment - not going to happen.

So - too bad, so sad, just be flagrantly unethical and possibly corrupt in public, and enjoy your lifetime appointment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

I'm not suggesting that nothing be done. I'm supportive of the 1/6 commission, and any prosecutions that result. I'm also supportive of everybody talking about it publicly, etc. What I am not in favor of doing is impeaching a justice "for show" and to create spectacle.

If investigation shows that he knew about her role and communication should he be held accountable for not recusing himself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

I'm not suggesting that nothing be done. I'm supportive of the 1/6 commission, and any prosecutions that result. I'm also supportive of everybody talking about it publicly, etc. What I am not in favor of doing is impeaching a justice "for show" and to create spectacle.

If investigation shows that he knew about her role and communication should he be held accountable for not recusing himself?

Honestly, I'd need to really think through what the actual conflict of interest was, and what it would mean for the future of required recusals if this one is found to be a to be worth impeachment. I'd want to know from judges and any precedents.

There are clear conflicts of interests- ruling on a matter that directly impacts a spouse's employer's ability to stay solvent, for example. This is not one of them. The woman didn't have a financial interest, she wasn't a party to the case, etc. Her views about 1/6 are well known, so there was nothing to hide. It is true that the ruling resulted in some of her communications being released, as part of a HUGE release. But I honestly don't know if that necessarily counts, without much more thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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 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.


I'm not suggesting that nothing be done. I'm supportive of the 1/6 commission, and any prosecutions that result. I'm also supportive of everybody talking about it publicly, etc. What I am not in favor of doing is impeaching a justice "for show" and to create spectacle.


If investigation shows that he knew about her role and communication should he be held accountable for not recusing himself?


Honestly, I'd need to really think through what the actual conflict of interest was, and what it would mean for the future of required recusals if this one is found to be a to be worth impeachment. I'd want to know from judges and any precedents.

There are clear conflicts of interests- ruling on a matter that directly impacts a spouse's employer's ability to stay solvent, for example. This is not one of them. The woman didn't have a financial interest, she wasn't a party to the case, etc. Her views about 1/6 are well known, so there was nothing to hide. It is true that the ruling resulted in some of her communications being released, as part of a HUGE release. But I honestly don't know if that necessarily counts, without much more thought.

Maybe you knew her views, but I certainly did not and I doubt most of the country knew until now. There was definitely something to hide. I, for one, will not trust his votes on the SC going forward. It is destructive of the whole SC if this is allowed to be pushed aside as "no big deal". How "much more thought" do you need to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's just so appalling and egregious that this is happening - and there is literally no feasible mechanism for any accountability! Yeah sure impeachment - not going to happen.

So - too bad, so sad, just be flagrantly unethical and possibly corrupt in public, and enjoy your lifetime appointment.

That's the lesson of the Trump presidency. As long as you don't admit any wrongdoing and don't resign, a republican can ride out anything no matter how corrupt, unethical or illegal. The right wing propaganda machine will protect you from any republican backlash and so long as republicans protect their own, there will be no actual consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

I'm not suggesting that nothing be done. I'm supportive of the 1/6 commission, and any prosecutions that result. I'm also supportive of everybody talking about it publicly, etc. What I am not in favor of doing is impeaching a justice "for show" and to create spectacle.

If investigation shows that he knew about her role and communication should he be held accountable for not recusing himself?

Honestly, I'd need to really think through what the actual conflict of interest was, and what it would mean for the future of required recusals if this one is found to be a to be worth impeachment. I'd want to know from judges and any precedents.

There are clear conflicts of interests- ruling on a matter that directly impacts a spouse's employer's ability to stay solvent, for example. This is not one of them. The woman didn't have a financial interest, she wasn't a party to the case, etc. Her views about 1/6 are well known, so there was nothing to hide. It is true that the ruling resulted in some of her communications being released, as part of a HUGE release. But I honestly don't know if that necessarily counts, without much more thought.

The case was whether to release documents and communications from the executive branch to the House’s committee. Ginni’s communications with the chief of staff were part of that release. Do you seriously think he didn’t know she was texting with the chief of staff when he cast the lone dissenting vote?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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 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.


I'm not suggesting that nothing be done. I'm supportive of the 1/6 commission, and any prosecutions that result. I'm also supportive of everybody talking about it publicly, etc. What I am not in favor of doing is impeaching a justice "for show" and to create spectacle.


If investigation shows that he knew about her role and communication should he be held accountable for not recusing himself?


Honestly, I'd need to really think through what the actual conflict of interest was, and what it would mean for the future of required recusals if this one is found to be a to be worth impeachment. I'd want to know from judges and any precedents.

There are clear conflicts of interests- ruling on a matter that directly impacts a spouse's employer's ability to stay solvent, for example. This is not one of them. The woman didn't have a financial interest, she wasn't a party to the case, etc. Her views about 1/6 are well known, so there was nothing to hide. It is true that the ruling resulted in some of her communications being released, as part of a HUGE release. But I honestly don't know if that necessarily counts, without much more thought.

Maybe you knew her views, but I certainly did not and I doubt most of the country knew until now. There was definitely something to hide. I, for one, will not trust his votes on the SC going forward. It is destructive of the whole SC if this is allowed to be pushed aside as "no big deal". How "much more thought" do you need to understand?

As far as I know, there was no public information about her role in 1/6 before she started getting ahead of the story with some leaks a couple weeks ago. There were initially rumors about her paying for buses, but I think those were pretty quickly shown to be false. Certainly no one knew she was a QAnon wackjob. The other thing is that we can't really assume that these texts are all there is. There are some texts from right after the election, and then a bunch from right around 1/6, with a huge gap in between, which is the time when all the coup planning was going down. There may be a lot more incriminating stuff out there, and the 1/6 committee may or may not yet have it. CT likely has a good idea about what that stuff is, but probably doesn't know exactly what phones, email boxes, etc. it resides on and whether it made it to the archives or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

I'm not suggesting that nothing be done. I'm supportive of the 1/6 commission, and any prosecutions that result. I'm also supportive of everybody talking about it publicly, etc. What I am not in favor of doing is impeaching a justice "for show" and to create spectacle.

If investigation shows that he knew about her role and communication should he be held accountable for not recusing himself?

Honestly, I'd need to really think through what the actual conflict of interest was, and what it would mean for the future of required recusals if this one is found to be a to be worth impeachment. I'd want to know from judges and any precedents.

There are clear conflicts of interests- ruling on a matter that directly impacts a spouse's employer's ability to stay solvent, for example. This is not one of them. The woman didn't have a financial interest, she wasn't a party to the case, etc. Her views about 1/6 are well known, so there was nothing to hide. It is true that the ruling resulted in some of her communications being released, as part of a HUGE release. But I honestly don't know if that necessarily counts, without much more thought.

The case was whether to release documents and communications from the executive branch to the House’s committee. Ginni’s communications with the chief of staff were part of that release. Do you seriously think he didn’t know she was texting with the chief of staff when he cast the lone dissenting vote?

Didn't one of the text expressly say she'd talked about it with her "best friend", an endearment each of the Thomases have used to refer to one another?

But I agree that we all know exactly what will happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just so appalling and egregious that this is happening - and there is literally no feasible mechanism for any accountability! Yeah sure impeachment - not going to happen.

So - too bad, so sad, just be flagrantly unethical and possibly corrupt in public, and enjoy your lifetime appointment.

That's the lesson of the Trump presidency. As long as you don't admit any wrongdoing and don't resign, a republican can ride out anything no matter how corrupt, unethical or illegal. The right wing propaganda machine will protect you from any republican backlash and so long as republicans protect their own, there will be no actual consequences.

this. every word of this is exactly correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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 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.


I'm not suggesting that nothing be done. I'm supportive of the 1/6 commission, and any prosecutions that result. I'm also supportive of everybody talking about it publicly, etc. What I am not in favor of doing is impeaching a justice "for show" and to create spectacle.


If investigation shows that he knew about her role and communication should he be held accountable for not recusing himself?


Honestly, I'd need to really think through what the actual conflict of interest was, and what it would mean for the future of required recusals if this one is found to be a to be worth impeachment. I'd want to know from judges and any precedents.

There are clear conflicts of interests- ruling on a matter that directly impacts a spouse's employer's ability to stay solvent, for example. This is not one of them. The woman didn't have a financial interest, she wasn't a party to the case, etc. Her views about 1/6 are well known, so there was nothing to hide. It is true that the ruling resulted in some of her communications being released, as part of a HUGE release. But I honestly don't know if that necessarily counts, without much more thought.

Maybe you knew her views, but I certainly did not and I doubt most of the country knew until now. There was definitely something to hide. I, for one, will not trust his votes on the SC going forward. It is destructive of the whole SC if this is allowed to be pushed aside as "no big deal". How "much more thought" do you need to understand?

What I need to think about is the precedent set and what it might mean for other situations in which I might not have serious disdain for the thoughts presented in the communications. Impeachment would not be because of her views or even her efforts to sway the CoS. Impeachment would be because a justice participated in a case that had *an impact* (which is not financial or really even reputational, and fairly ill-defined) on a spouse that was not a party to the case, not employed by a party to the case, and with no formal affiliation with a party to the case.

[Anonymous]

Looking into this further, it looks like the decision that Thomas dissented in did NOT lead to the release of his wife's emails?

"This January, Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter in a proceeding in which Trump asked the Court to stop the House investigative committee from obtaining records of his communications relating to efforts to subvert the 2020 election results. It is unclear whether Trump’s records would have implicated Ginni Thomas. Meadows filed an amicus brief in the case, in support of Trump’s claims of executive privilege, and at the time Meadows’s lawyers were arguing that his coöperation with congressional investigators depended on whether Trump would be ordered to comply himself. Yet, by that point, Meadows had already turned over to the congressional committee some twenty-three hundred texts—and, according to the Washington Post, they included the twenty-nine-message exchange between him and Ginni Thomas."
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/legal-scholars-are-shocked-by-ginni-thomass-stop-the-steal-texts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just so appalling and egregious that this is happening - and there is literally no feasible mechanism for any accountability! Yeah sure impeachment - not going to happen.

So - too bad, so sad, just be flagrantly unethical and possibly corrupt in public, and enjoy your lifetime appointment.

That's the lesson of the Trump presidency. As long as you don't admit any wrongdoing and don't resign, a republican can ride out anything no matter how corrupt, unethical or illegal. The right wing propaganda machine will protect you from any republican backlash and so long as republicans protect their own, there will be no actual consequences.

this. every word of this is exactly correct.

Excuse me, excuse me.
It was fraud,
Fraud like nobody’s evah seen
It was fraud like nobody’s evah seen.

We were winning,
And winning very strongly,
Until they brought in the bamboo ballots,
And hid the very strong ballots.

It was a disgrace,
A complete disgrace.