Reply to Is Ginni Thomas A Threat To The Supreme Court?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Is Ginni Thomas A Threat To The Supreme Court?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]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. [b]Her views about 1/6 are well known,[/b] 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, [b]without much more thought.[/b][/quote]

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?

[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics