Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just so appalling and egregious that this is happening - and there is literally no feasible mechanism for any accountability! Yeah sure impeachment - not going to happen.

So - too bad, so sad, just be flagrantly unethical and possibly corrupt in public, and enjoy your lifetime appointment.

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.

this. every word of this is exactly correct.

Anonymous wrote:

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. Her views about 1/6 are well known, 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, without much more thought.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just so appalling and egregious that this is happening - and there is literally no feasible mechanism for any accountability! Yeah sure impeachment - not going to happen.

So - too bad, so sad, just be flagrantly unethical and possibly corrupt in public, and enjoy your lifetime appointment.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. Her views about 1/6 are well known, 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, without much more thought.

The case was whether to release documents and communications from the executive branch to the House’s committee. Ginni’s communications with the chief of staff were part of that release. Do you seriously think he didn’t know she was texting with the chief of staff when he cast the lone dissenting vote?

Anonymous wrote:

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. Her views about 1/6 are well known, 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, without much more thought.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

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. Her views about 1/6 are well known, 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, without much more thought.

Anonymous wrote:It's just so appalling and egregious that this is happening - and there is literally no feasible mechanism for any accountability! Yeah sure impeachment - not going to happen.

So - too bad, so sad, just be flagrantly unethical and possibly corrupt in public, and enjoy your lifetime appointment.

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. Her views about 1/6 are well known, 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, without much more thought.

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?

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I think my favourite text is when Ginni, the wife of a Supreme Court justice, was whining about 'the elites' in that tone deaf way that characterizes many right wingers.