Is Ginni Thomas A Threat To The Supreme Court?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Do not forget that this is only one batch of texts.



Please continue to push for the discovery of ALL possible communication.




If these texts are the worse Mrs. Thomas has ever sent, it's fine. The concern is that they are just the tip of iceberg.

Assume she sent worse, how is her husband guilty of anything? If you can’t hold JB responsible for HB stuff, how is this different?

I did not say her husband was guilty of anything. He's tainted, and brings a bad odor to the Supreme Court, but that is not actionable right now, unless we uncover more direct attempts to *illegally* overturn the election.

You'll have to accept that not every Democrat is frothing at the mouth over this, just like not every Republican is frothing at the mouth over Biden/Clinton stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Do not forget that this is only one batch of texts.



Please continue to push for the discovery of ALL possible communication.




If these texts are the worse Mrs. Thomas has ever sent, it's fine. The concern is that they are just the tip of iceberg.

Assume she sent worse, how is her husband guilty of anything? If you can’t hold JB responsible for HB stuff, how is this different?

It depends on what they are. If she invoked his name or his power in any way then yeah, he might be guilty. So far she hasn't mentioned her husband in any of these, which to that I can at least give her a little credit I guess. Who knows if there are more where she has.

Like 10% for the big guy makes JB guilty, or that’s somehow different?

I'm not sure why I'm engaging with you, but the 10% email was written in 2017, AFTER Joe was VP. Ginni Thomas' texts were written WHILE her husband is a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE and has massive amounts of power to influence an election. That's the difference.

Trump sure thought so.

[Anonymous]

She was pushing QAnon conspiracy theories and pushing for VP not to certify the election. Clarence Thomas voted against releasing Trump’s documents. This is all batsh*t crazy.

While I fundamentally disagree with Republicans, I don’t think they eat babies or run a sex trafficking ring at Comet. QAnon has really taken over the GOP. There needs to be a purge of Qanon folks out of the GOP.

[Anonymous]

This is like when Trump did things so bad that we couldn't even get our minds around it. This is SO BAD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Do not forget that this is only one batch of texts.



Please continue to push for the discovery of ALL possible communication.




If these texts are the worse Mrs. Thomas has ever sent, it's fine. The concern is that they are just the tip of iceberg.

Assume she sent worse, how is her husband guilty of anything? If you can’t hold JB responsible for HB stuff, how is this different?

It depends on what they are. If she invoked his name or his power in any way then yeah, he might be guilty. So far she hasn't mentioned her husband in any of these, which to that I can at least give her a little credit I guess. Who knows if there are more where she has.

Like 10% for the big guy makes JB guilty, or that’s somehow different?

I'm not sure why I'm engaging with you, but the 10% email was written in 2017, AFTER Joe was VP. Ginni Thomas' texts were written WHILE her husband is a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE and has massive amounts of power to influence an election. That's the difference.

Trump sure thought so.

Yep, exactly, and I think there's a good chance that Ginni had the same thought. These texts don't reveal that and of course it's speculation, but I don't think it's out of bounds to think that she did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Do not forget that this is only one batch of texts.



Please continue to push for the discovery of ALL possible communication.




If these texts are the worse Mrs. Thomas has ever sent, it's fine. The concern is that they are just the tip of iceberg.

Assume she sent worse, how is her husband guilty of anything? If you can’t hold JB responsible for HB stuff, how is this different?

It depends on what they are. If she invoked his name or his power in any way then yeah, he might be guilty. So far she hasn't mentioned her husband in any of these, which to that I can at least give her a little credit I guess. Who knows if there are more where she has.

Like 10% for the big guy makes JB guilty, or that’s somehow different?

I'm not sure why I'm engaging with you, but the 10% email was written in 2017, AFTER Joe was VP. Ginni Thomas' texts were written WHILE her husband is a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE and has massive amounts of power to influence an election. That's the difference.

So now that email is real, but after he was VP. I thought it was fake?

[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.

I agree. No Supreme Court justice has ever been successfully impeached. Another lost impeachment hearing will cost Democrats in the long run. Shame him into retirement or charge his wife criminally or both. Keep her conspiracy to overthrow our government in the news.

Maybe Mrs. Thomas runs into some issues, though I don’t know how you sanction her for using her right to speak freely. But the notion that Justice Thomas must resign underscores the Democrat plot against America. You can’t hand Biden an illegitimate chance to fill another SCOTUS seat. People forget that Justice Thomas did nothing wrong.

If somehow Justice Thomas is forced out or driven to death, his seat needs to be held open until his party takes the Presidency. It’s only fair.

You mean the same way that Justice Ginsberg's seat was held open until her party took over the Presidency? The Republicans chose to ramrod Amy Coney Barrett into the seat in the fastest nomination and confirmation hearings in history. The Republicans were polling poorly in both the Senate and the Presidency for the election coming up in less than 2 months time, so they forced the nomination and confirmation process to the limits in the fastest procedings in history. Ginsburg passed 46 days before the election. If the Republicans had not been completely hypocritical they would have reacted the same way they did when Scalia died and would have stopped the procedings until after the elections.

The Republicans continue to use the "do as I say, not as I do" theory of political power. They blocked the appointment of Merrick Garland a year before an election on the philosophy that the Supreme Court nomination should wait for the election and the new president to nominate. But they refused to follow that policy when Ginsburg died 46 days before the election. The Democrats should follow the clear example that the Republicans set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree. No Supreme Court justice has ever been successfully impeached. Another lost impeachment hearing will cost Democrats in the long run. Shame him into retirement or charge his wife criminally or both. Keep her conspiracy to overthrow our government in the news.

Maybe Mrs. Thomas runs into some issues, though I don’t know how you sanction her for using her right to speak freely. But the notion that Justice Thomas must resign underscores the Democrat plot against America. You can’t hand Biden an illegitimate chance to fill another SCOTUS seat. People forget that Justice Thomas did nothing wrong.

If somehow Justice Thomas is forced out or driven to death, his seat needs to be held open until his party takes the Presidency. It’s only fair.

There are no republican or democrat seats on the Supreme Court. You need a civics lesson.

Plotting to overthrow a free and fair election is not free speech. It remains to be proven that Clarence did something wrong but I'm of the opinion that he probably did. Guilty people act guilty and he certainly is. My mind keeps going back to Ginni's partner and co founder of Turning Point that day after the insurrection. He proudly tweeted that they paid for 80 bus loads. It was deleted but someone somewhere must have a screen shot. If true she funded the insurection. Clarence retiring does not give Biden an "illegitimate" pick for the Supreme Court. If there's an opening during President Biden's term it must be filled.

It remains to be proven that your husband is a child molester, but he probably is.
See how that works?

He just walked out of a hotel room with a kid. Still don’t know what happened in that room but it doesn’t look good.

The husband in question did not use his Supreme Court position to vote against an investigation of child exploitation. He’s not married to a child molester either. Think really hard since you chose this comparison. Why are you so focused on that? Fighting your true nature?

[Anonymous]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Justice Thomas didn’t know what docs were in the national archives? And in the released texts between Meadows and GT there are no emails dated in December and January?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Correct me if I’m wrong, but Justice Thomas didn’t know what docs were in the national archives? And in the released texts between Meadows and GT there are no emails dated in December and January?

I don't know if any of us can confirm the first. As to the second, I believe there was one communication from around 1/10 when Ginni expressed disappointment with Pence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Correct me if I’m wrong, but Justice Thomas didn’t know what docs were in the national archives? And in the released texts between Meadows and GT there are no emails dated in December and January?

We don’t know and he didn’t care to explain his dissent in the case. He can choose to present his case and explain why he dissented or leave it open for interpretation. The simplest reason for remaining quiet is that he knew he was protecting his wife and people associated with both of them.

[Anonymous]

She is absolutely a threat to the court and the country.

[Anonymous]

The universal standard for conflict of interests is to avoid EVEN THE APPEARANCE of a conflict. This is so over any rational line -- but we're not dealing with rational people. So, here we are. The lunatics are running the asylum (apologies to those with actual mental health issues that are not fully self-inflicted).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correct me if I’m wrong, but Justice Thomas didn’t know what docs were in the national archives? And in the released texts between Meadows and GT there are no emails dated in December and January?

We don’t know and he didn’t care to explain his dissent in the case. He can choose to present his case and explain why he dissented or leave it open for interpretation. The simplest reason for remaining quiet is that he knew he was protecting his wife and people associated with both of them.

Assuming you are saying that he should explain his dissent now, rather than having an obligation to write something then, you are probably right.

But just to say, Justice Thomas has always taken a particularly expansive view of executive power, including executive privilege. A dissent in this case makes sense, given his jurisprudence.

https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/1300/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZD1.html

This is not to say he wasn't influenced by the specific facts. He may have been. But the "simplest explanation" could also be that he disagreed with the ruling as a matter of law, and written dissents are not all that common when ruling on a application to stay a mandate.

[Anonymous]

what if in 2000 or 2016, fringe groups, groups of 'progressives' or, gasp, Black people engaged in this same behavior?