Is Ginni Thomas A Threat To The Supreme Court?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her name has been bandied about as the possible leaker but let’s not forget that we know Ginni Thomas was enmeshed in the GOP’s attempt to overthrow the government.

She’s hideous. If the spouse of a liberal justice had behaved as she did, the GOP would be screaming that she needs to be impeached

No, the Democrats have been saying that Clarence Thomas needs to be investigated. Ginni Thomas, while a ball of dung, holds no public position and thus cannot be impeached.

He enjoyed $600k of her income from The Family Foundation and failed to report it on his financial disclosure statements for several years. He was allowed to revise the statements after three years. Ginni earns more as a RW activist than Clarence does at his day job. He’s pulling in a lot from his speaking engagements lately. He should resign. He’s corrupt.

Did not know justices were allowed to do this. Is there any cap on how much they can make?

Have you slept through the last three months while this was discussed? I doubt there is a ceiling but I know certain groups will give a ridiculously high fee , like $50k for a speech. Republicans spilled their pearls when FORMER President Bill Clinton received $25k for a speech. Now I think it’s the minimum. The point is all federal employees have to file an annual financial report and Clarence lied on his for three years in a row. He’s a liar and he’s corrupt.

Omg. Remember when Rs would flip TF out over “speaker fees”?

We’ve come quite a long way since then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What public office does she currently hold?

She’s a lobbyist.

Lobbyist is a public office?

Did I say “Yes, she’s a lobbyist?” No, I did not. Parse better.

It was a direct answer to "what public office does she hold" so yes, you did.
The rules for other relatives on this board is "they do not hold public office so we don’t discuss them" why are the rules different now?

No, the rules for other relatives has been “do they involve themselves politically?” Ginni was involved in trying to overthrow the government. I know you right wingers have a laptop obsession, but this is actually bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her name has been bandied about as the possible leaker but let’s not forget that we know Ginni Thomas was enmeshed in the GOP’s attempt to overthrow the government.

She’s hideous. If the spouse of a liberal justice had behaved as she did, the GOP would be screaming that she needs to be impeached

No, the Democrats have been saying that Clarence Thomas needs to be investigated. Ginni Thomas, while a ball of dung, holds no public position and thus cannot be impeached.

He enjoyed $600k of her income from The Family Foundation and failed to report it on his financial disclosure statements for several years. He was allowed to revise the statements after three years. Ginni earns more as a RW activist than Clarence does at his day job. He’s pulling in a lot from his speaking engagements lately. He should resign. He’s corrupt.

Did not know justices were allowed to do this. Is there any cap on how much they can make?

Have you slept through the last three months while this was discussed? I doubt there is a ceiling but I know certain groups will give a ridiculously high fee , like $50k for a speech. Republicans spilled their pearls when FORMER President Bill Clinton received $25k for a speech. Now I think it’s the minimum. The point is all federal employees have to file an annual financial report and Clarence lied on his for three years in a row. He’s a liar and he’s corrupt.

Omg. Remember when Rs would flip TF out over “speaker fees”?

We’ve come quite a long way since then.

Clarence Thomas currently fills a position on the Supreme Court and he accepts speaker fees from large political groups who potentially have cases before him. Can he be any more corrupt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her name has been bandied about as the possible leaker but let’s not forget that we know Ginni Thomas was enmeshed in the GOP’s attempt to overthrow the government.

She’s hideous. If the spouse of a liberal justice had behaved as she did, the GOP would be screaming that she needs to be impeached

No, the Democrats have been saying that Clarence Thomas needs to be investigated. Ginni Thomas, while a ball of dung, holds no public position and thus cannot be impeached.

He enjoyed $600k of her income from The Family Foundation and failed to report it on his financial disclosure statements for several years. He was allowed to revise the statements after three years. Ginni earns more as a RW activist than Clarence does at his day job. He’s pulling in a lot from his speaking engagements lately. He should resign. He’s corrupt.

Did not know justices were allowed to do this. Is there any cap on how much they can make?

Have you slept through the last three months while this was discussed? I doubt there is a ceiling but I know certain groups will give a ridiculously high fee , like $50k for a speech. Republicans spilled their pearls when FORMER President Bill Clinton received $25k for a speech. Now I think it’s the minimum. The point is all federal employees have to file an annual financial report and Clarence lied on his for three years in a row. He’s a liar and he’s corrupt.

Omg. Remember when Rs would flip TF out over “speaker fees”?

We’ve come quite a long way since then.

Clarence Thomas currently fills a position on the Supreme Court and he accepts speaker fees from large political groups who potentially have cases before him. Can he be any more corrupt?

Perhaps that is why Roberts refuses to investigate: he doesn’t want to know how corrupt Thomas is.

[Anonymous]

What happens if a SCOTUS gets impeached before a decision is released. Can a justice still vote on active cases while being impeached?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happens if a SCOTUS gets impeached before a decision is released. Can a justice still vote on active cases while being impeached?

.

I think he can. We’ve only had one impeached in the 1800s and he survived impeachment. We don’t have enough of a majority in Congress to be successful so we really only have retirement or death to remove him as with other SC justices. We still don’t know what that week in the hospital was about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happens if a SCOTUS gets impeached before a decision is released. Can a justice still vote on active cases while being impeached?

It’s a lovely thought you’re having, but what do you imagine will happen to make an impeachment a likely thing? The GOP still effectively controls the Senate. I don’t know much about impeaching a scotus member, but I would imagine it goes through the same channels as presidential impeachment.

And six scotus members need to be impeached as they all perjured themselves at their hearings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens if a SCOTUS gets impeached before a decision is released. Can a justice still vote on active cases while being impeached?

It’s a lovely thought you’re having, but what do you imagine will happen to make an impeachment a likely thing? The GOP still effectively controls the Senate. I don’t know much about impeaching a scotus member, but I would imagine it goes through the same channels as presidential impeachment.

And six scotus members need to be impeached as they all perjured themselves at their hearings.

Yeah - it's a pipe dream to hold these corrupt, lying justices accountable for their actions.

[Anonymous]

The GOP celebrates corruption and banana republic-style crap, so this will go nowhere, but the Democrats actually like the rule of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The GOP celebrates corruption and banana republic-style crap, so this will go nowhere, but the Democrats actually like the rule of law.

Funny how that works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her name has been bandied about as the possible leaker but let’s not forget that we know Ginni Thomas was enmeshed in the GOP’s attempt to overthrow the government.

She’s hideous. If the spouse of a liberal justice had behaved as she did, the GOP would be screaming that she needs to be impeached

No, the Democrats have been saying that Clarence Thomas needs to be investigated. Ginni Thomas, while a ball of dung, holds no public position and thus cannot be impeached.

He enjoyed $600k of her income from The Family Foundation and failed to report it on his financial disclosure statements for several years. He was allowed to revise the statements after three years. Ginni earns more as a RW activist than Clarence does at his day job. He’s pulling in a lot from his speaking engagements lately. He should resign. He’s corrupt.

Did not know justices were allowed to do this. Is there any cap on how much they can make?

Have you slept through the last three months while this was discussed? I doubt there is a ceiling but I know certain groups will give a ridiculously high fee , like $50k for a speech. Republicans spilled their pearls when FORMER President Bill Clinton received $25k for a speech. Now I think it’s the minimum. The point is all federal employees have to file an annual financial report and Clarence lied on his for three years in a row. He’s a liar and he’s corrupt.

Omg. Remember when Rs would flip TF out over “speaker fees”?

We’ve come quite a long way since then.

Clarence Thomas currently fills a position on the Supreme Court and he accepts speaker fees from large political groups who potentially have cases before him. Can he be any more corrupt?

Why isn’t Thomas being held accountable for this corruption?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her name has been bandied about as the possible leaker but let’s not forget that we know Ginni Thomas was enmeshed in the GOP’s attempt to overthrow the government.

She’s hideous. If the spouse of a liberal justice had behaved as she did, the GOP would be screaming that she needs to be impeached

No, the Democrats have been saying that Clarence Thomas needs to be investigated. Ginni Thomas, while a ball of dung, holds no public position and thus cannot be impeached.

He enjoyed $600k of her income from The Family Foundation and failed to report it on his financial disclosure statements for several years. He was allowed to revise the statements after three years. Ginni earns more as a RW activist than Clarence does at his day job. He’s pulling in a lot from his speaking engagements lately. He should resign. He’s corrupt.

Did not know justices were allowed to do this. Is there any cap on how much they can make?

Have you slept through the last three months while this was discussed? I doubt there is a ceiling but I know certain groups will give a ridiculously high fee , like $50k for a speech. Republicans spilled their pearls when FORMER President Bill Clinton received $25k for a speech. Now I think it’s the minimum. The point is all federal employees have to file an annual financial report and Clarence lied on his for three years in a row. He’s a liar and he’s corrupt.

Omg. Remember when Rs would flip TF out over “speaker fees”?

We’ve come quite a long way since then.

Clarence Thomas currently fills a position on the Supreme Court and he accepts speaker fees from large political groups who potentially have cases before him. Can he be any more corrupt?

Why isn’t Thomas being held accountable for this corruption?

Because the Republicans like the corruption.

[Anonymous]

Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the conservative activist and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, pressed Arizona lawmakers after the 2020 election to set aside Joe Biden’s popular-vote victory and choose “a clean slate of Electors,” according to emails obtained by The Washington Post.
The emails, sent by Ginni Thomas to a pair of lawmakers on Nov. 9, 2020 , argued that legislators needed to intervene because the vote had been marred by fraud. Though she did not mention either candidate by name, the context was clear.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2022/05/20/ginni-thomas-arizona-election-emails/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the conservative activist and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, pressed Arizona lawmakers after the 2020 election to set aside Joe Biden’s popular-vote victory and choose “a clean slate of Electors,” according to emails obtained by The Washington Post.
The emails, sent by Ginni Thomas to a pair of lawmakers on Nov. 9, 2020 , argued that legislators needed to intervene because the vote had been marred by fraud. Though she did not mention either candidate by name, the context was clear.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2022/05/20/ginni-thomas-arizona-election-emails/

Ginni is a busy woman.

[Anonymous]

Anyone else want to see her arrested for sedition?