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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I gather going after Virginia Thomas is the left's new means of trying to create another Supreme Court vacancy.  It's all so transparent.  [/quote]

Surprise, surprise.  AOC now calling for Clarence Thomas to either resign or be impeached: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/600145-ocasio-cortez-to-clarence-thomas-resign-or-face-impeachment

Who could have seen that coming?  Oh, wait, me.  I did.  Doubt all you want haters.[/quote]

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.
[twitter]https://twitter.com/briannaatucker/status/1508765108511686660?s=21&t=O2Uxfgk2qHkWaJPvtQLPiQ[/twitter][/quote]
I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. [b]Taking money from the Heritage Foundation[/b] (let’s not try to be precious and pretend that they keep their money totally separate)? Do you know how many cases he should have recused from? Should recuse from going forward? He needs to resign. Not like Roberts gets what a partisan joke he presides over. [/quote]

Hang on, you think that the mere fact that his wife was paid by Heritage is enough to mean he should have recused from cases?  Failure to disclose is a problem, for sure.  But think about what that would mean.  Many justices have spouses who gain income from law firms who represent clients with interests before the court.  Should they all recuse?  What if somebody's spouse received money to speak at an ACLU event?  A Planned Parenthood event?  Recusal required?[/quote]
DP. John Roberts’ wife was a very talented lawyer with a big firm who became a legal headhunter instead once Roberts was confirmed for SCOTUS, to avoid any possibility of conflict. There’s no telling how many cases that Thomas has decided where one of the parties, or one of the interest groups writing amicus briefs on behalf of the parties, was someone who’s paying Ginni Thomas. She’s been in every right wing thing everywhere forever.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/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