Is Ginni Thomas A Threat To The Supreme Court?

[Anonymous]

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

They would have been shot dead outside and inside the Capitol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, nothing to see here, people, the wife of one of the nine most powerful people in the US fomented an armed insurrection of the government. Move along.

[Anonymous]

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]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, nothing to see here, people, the wife of one of the nine most powerful people in the US fomented an armed insurrection of the government. Move along.

I really wasn't saying that. At all. She is awful and ridiculous. The fact that the insurrection happened is horrific. If Pence HAD followed through on some people's plans for him to not certify the results, it would have been the end of the constitutional republic. Without question.

I still think that there are interesting legal questions to be had, and nuance. And I prefer not to paint with a broad brush and draw fast conclusions without a whole lot of facts.

May just be me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Please spell out exactly what He did wrong? Not what his wife did, but what he did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Please spell out exactly what He did wrong? Not what his wife did, but what he did.

He tried to hide his wife's involvement. Got it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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).

at the very least, he should have recused himself from hearing cases relating to the insurrection (and going forward any trump presidency/insurrection cases). Failure to do this, as he should have, should have futher consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Please spell out exactly what He did wrong? Not what his wife did, but what he did.

He tried to hide his wife's involvement. Got it?

Please show me where he did this, not what you assume he did

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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).

at the very least, he should have recused himself from hearing cases relating to the insurrection (and going forward any trump presidency/insurrection cases). Failure to do this, as he should have, should have futher consequences.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Please spell out exactly what He did wrong? Not what his wife did, but what he did.

He tried to hide his wife's involvement. Got it?

Please show me where he did this, not what you assume he did

NP. He did not vote to release Trump’s/WH’s records on the insurrection.

[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?

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.

He didn’t know where the texts his wife sent to Meadows were archived Bc they were sent to Meadows private phone. We don’t know if there are other messages out there- all we know is what has been released to us by the J6C. Further it seems curious that there are no texts from Ginny in December or January in the run up to the insurrection.

You can easily hypothesize that there’s worse texts out there that haven’t been released and that’s what they are getting ahead of and why CT hid in the hospital. Should be fun when they subpoena the wife of a SCT justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Please spell out exactly what He did wrong? Not what his wife did, but what he did.

He tried to hide his wife's involvement. Got it?

Please show me where he did this, not what you assume he did

NP. He did not vote to release Trump’s/WH’s records on the insurrection.

Technically, he did not concur with an assessment that a mandate to release those records (which did not include the emails in question) should not be stayed.
And either way, it isn't proof of his intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Please spell out exactly what He did wrong? Not what his wife did, but what he did.

He tried to hide his wife's involvement. Got it?

Please show me where he did this, not what you assume he did

NP. He did not vote to release Trump’s/WH’s records on the insurrection.

Technically, he did not concur with an assessment that a mandate to release those records (which did not include the emails in question) should not be stayed.
And either way, it isn't proof of his intent.

Oh FFS. It looks really bad. It throws the court's legitimacy and impartiality into question. Justices are held to a high standard and are supposed to avoid things that do exactly that. I know you think you've got some GOTCHA here - but one of the things justices are not supposed to do, is rule in cases where everyone looking at it is like What the actual EFF how can he be ruling on this case given his wife's involvement?! ON ITS FACE this is a case in which he should have recused himself - unless he truly didn't know his "best friend" was participating in Jan 6 and the attempt to overthrow the election, which seems implausible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Please spell out exactly what He did wrong? Not what his wife did, but what he did.

He tried to hide his wife's involvement. Got it?

Please show me where he did this, not what you assume he did

NP. He did not vote to release Trump’s/WH’s records on the insurrection.

Technically, he did not concur with an assessment that a mandate to release those records (which did not include the emails in question) should not be stayed.
And either way, it isn't proof of his intent.

Oh FFS. It looks really bad. It throws the court's legitimacy and impartiality into question. Justices are held to a high standard and are supposed to avoid things that do exactly that. I know you think you've got some GOTCHA here - but one of the things justices are not supposed to do, is rule in cases where everyone looking at it is like What the actual EFF how can he be ruling on this case given his wife's involvement?! ON ITS FACE this is a case in which he should have recused himself - unless he truly didn't know his "best friend" was participating in Jan 6 and the attempt to overthrow the election, which seems implausible.

Ginni Thomas' views are not shocking to anyone, or shouldn't be. Nor are her connections. The emails recently released were not a part of what was being ruled on.

So if you are saying that he should have recused himself from anything involving the election and would have said that before the recent stories about her emails, I would understand that.

But these emails add to spectacle, but they don't make a difference as to the propriety of what he did.