Is Ginni Thomas A Threat To The Supreme Court?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
So I’m a Supreme Court justice and my spouse speaks at an ACLU sponsored event about Freedom of the Press and collects an honorarium. A year later, I rule on a case about freedom of religion and ACLU is not a party or amici. I should recuse (even if I cannot be replaced on a panel)? |
Anonymous
I think it's worth remembering here: It's not like she gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation and now he's conflicted out of any cases where Heritage might have an interest. This isn't some theoretical where she advocated for a free speech position and now he's got to decide the constitutionality of something where he may adopt that position or may not. She was actively trying to overthrow our government - texting like a gd lunatic with Trump's COS about doing it - and seems to have been part of planning the Jan 6 insurrection. Yes FFS of COURSE he should be conflicted out of cases involving the Jan 6 insurrection! His wife's effing TEXTS were part of a case he was ruling on! We're not talking about some highfalutin *ideas* that we might agree about or might not. We are talking about his wife's role in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow the effing government. THAT IS A BIG DEAL. |
Anonymous
I am the PP that asked about the assertion that a Heritage payment, and I agree with you, for the most part, about the emails around 1/6. But the sub-question raised about accepting payments from organizations that have multiple policy objectives is also interesting. |
Anonymous
Nicely put. I agree. |
Anonymous
Thank you. I wish this was being covered in this way instead of with this shoulder shrug of indifference like this is some minor different in political philosophy. In any other advanced democracy Thomas would have already have had to resign. |
Anonymous
x1 million |
Anonymous
+ 2 million. We aren't talking about even making some money on the side, or even just having some controversial ideas. SHE WORKED FOR THE OVERTHROW OF A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT. One that Trump now wants PUTIN to help him continue to try to overthrow. Does that make it clearer? |
Anonymous
Well George Washington did the same thing! |
Anonymous
She didn’t give a speech at an event. She worked for the Heritage Foundation while they were advocating that corporations are people, against equal pay laws, and other right wing causes that were heading for the Supreme Court. |
Anonymous
Sure/ interesting. But not really relevant to this case. In this case, it's pretty cut and dry, I think. I would also note that this isn't a situation where a sitting justice is married to a former felon who went to jail and served their time or anything. That I might have respect for. People can grow, and move past their bad acts. This just happened, she's shown no sign of remorse, and for all we know she is STILL trying to get Trump reinstated as president despite him losing an election. It just seems on its face that a judge - forget a Sup Ct justice - should not be ruling on regular world cases, while their spouse is publicly engaged in THIS level of insane criminal activity. I tell you what, too. If this whole "overthrow the government" thing had just, like, been discussed on a weird FB page and never went anywhere, maybe I would feel differently. Sure, not great - but, eh, everyone's weird in some way. But this was a large scale, long term, deeply involved criminal conspiracy to try to overthrow our government. And she - lunatic as she appears to be - was part of it. How much a part? We don't really know yet. I can say I do not feel comfortable having her husband making rulings as if life is just super normal though, while we find out. |
Anonymous
Again. I am not addressing the emails about the election. I am addressing the issue that came up in this thread about payments from Heritage. If that I’d off topic, OK. But is this thread is about whether and why she is a threat, some specificity about that seems worth probing. If only to be clear for any future precedent and “what about-ism” |
Anonymous
+3 million. She was actively involved with this plot. Quite honestly we don’t know that Clarence Thomas wasn’t involved in discussions conducted at his home. Being nice, according to the staffers you did not sexually harass, does not mean you are incapable of crimes of treason. I’m betting he’s starting to wish he was back in the hospital. |
Anonymous
Do you know what the payment was for? Is receiving payment from an organization that advocates for “causes that are heading for the Supreme Court” per se disqualifying for the spouse of that person for cases that implicate that cause? |
Anonymous
Not PP but yes, I think it does. And Justice Roberts’s wife seems to agree since she didn’t want to work at any law firm that might have cases before the court. If Ginni Thomas is getting paid by an organization with business in front of the court, then Clarence Thomas’s personal finances are affected and he should recuse himself from cases involving that organization. Let alone when her personal communications are being subpoenaed. People are making this harder than it is. |
Anonymous
It’s a conflict of interest. The Heritage Foundation advocates what its donors tell it to advocate. It advocated for corporate personhood because the same companies pushing the case were funding Heritage to be their “think tank” experts. That’s all a think tank is. It’s a front for a collection of experts that sell their credibility to donors. Every position paper and every policy advocate is paid for in advance. |