Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (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.

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?

Yes, they should.

I serve on a DC board and recuse where there is anything close to an appearance of impropriety, Certainly a SCOTUS judge should at least do that much.

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)?

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.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (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.

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?

Yes, they should.

I serve on a DC board and recuse where there is anything close to an appearance of impropriety, Certainly a SCOTUS judge should at least do that much.

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)?

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.

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?

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (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.

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?

Yes, they should.

I serve on a DC board and recuse where there is anything close to an appearance of impropriety, Certainly a SCOTUS judge should at least do that much.

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)?

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (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.

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?

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.

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.

x1 million

+ 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?

+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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (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.

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?

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.

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.

x1 million

+ 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?

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (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.

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?

Yes, they should.

I serve on a DC board and recuse where there is anything close to an appearance of impropriety, Certainly a SCOTUS judge should at least do that much.

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)?

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (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.

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?

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.

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.

x1 million

+ 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?

Well George Washington did the same thing!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (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.

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?

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.

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.

x1 million

+ 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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (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.

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?

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.

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.

x1 million

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (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.

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?

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.

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (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.

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?

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.

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.

Nicely put. I agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (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.

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?

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.

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (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.

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?

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Other Democrats, the ones who are actually in charge of things, want him to recuse.

I’m neither an elected official nor in charge of anything. He needs to resign. Taking money from the Heritage Foundation (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.

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?

Yes, they should.

I serve on a DC board and recuse where there is anything close to an appearance of impropriety, Certainly a SCOTUS judge should at least do that much.

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)?