How can Clarence Thomas possibly stay on the court when we now know his wife was texting the WH chief of staff and trying to help overthrow the election? He was also the only justice, and keep in mind this includes 3 Trump appointees, who dissented with regards to Trump having to turn over documents to the 1/6 committee. There is no way he can be seen as a non biased justice going forward. He needs to resign immediately.
Clarence and Ginni Thomas
- Thread starter Cubs79
- Start date
No it isnt, and it isnt supposed to be. Even with the Trump 1/6 situation, all 3 of the Trump appointees ruled against him, because they knew that was the correct thing to do. If the supreme court has become just another political wing, then it probably just needs to be disbanded. There is no point in having a SC if they are just going to roll over to whatever their political party wants. It is supposed to be a check on the executive and legislative branches, not just another part of partisan politics. There is no way Thomas can be considered an unbiased jurist going forward.
So are you personally accountable for your wife's actions? Your kids'? How about your parents or siblings?
I’ll contemplate your request as soon as Joe resigns for Hunter’s actions.
I didnt say that, but we are talking about the highest court in the land. It is in no ones best interest to have it viewed as partisan. If he had recused himself from the 1/6 case due to his wifes connections, I would say he was at least responsible enough to recuse himself, and would be ok with that. But he didnt do that, so he he literally ruled on a claim that his wife has least played some role in. You cant possibly tell me you think that is appropriate.
Jesus, you guys and your Hunter Biden tourette's. Hunter has nothing to do with the supreme court, nothing. Go take that BS to a Hunter thread.
Whine and cry all you want, but your argument is empty while you make excuses for the Biden family corruption.
Oh **** off. Trump's kids made over half a billion dollars while working in the White House, and you dont give one shit about it. You arent on some moral highground like you think you are. There have been numerous threads about Hunter, but as soon as somebody wants to talk about something else you guys wont let that happen. You are pointless.
I'm sincerely asking you to not walk away from this topic because your opinion carries value, at least in my opinion. Can you see how this deal could be viewed as hypocrisy?
Sorry, but both sides need to learn how to understand one another and instead we are just creating more and more confrontation.
Don’t talk about someone else but let me whatabout Trump’s kids.
Also, they had businesses before Trump entered public service and they weren’t obviously unfit to sit on the board of anything.
It's not what she "tried to do", because that is debatable at the least. It's that we should be able to have discussion on what happened and whether it matters. Too many hard lines are being drawn recently.
In a thread about Clarence THomas you start talking about Hunter Biden, but me bringing up the Trump kids is whataboutism? Could you be anymore of a hypocrit?
Could I see how what is hypocrisy? This is a thread about Clarence Thomas that was immediately made about Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden has been talked about over and over on this board, he doesnt have to be the topic on every single thread. I am not blaming you for that because you didnt bring up Hunter, but I dont even know exactly what hypocrisy you are talking about because the thread went off the rails almost immediately. I understand that threads can progress into different avenues, especially if they are lengthy threads, but when people just change the topic immediately then it becomes kind of pointless to try and have an actual discussion on anything.
We have texts from her to Meadows. So I do agree with you, that a person shouldnt be responsible for everything someone close to them does. However, since she was at least involved to some extent with the 1/6 stuff, then there is no way Clarence Thomas should be ruling on anything involved with this. If he had recused himself, I wouldnt have an issue with it, but he didnt.
Look at it his way. If you got into a fist fight with someone, and they sued you wanting a lot of money, but you argue it was self defense. When you got in front of a judge, and you found out the judge was a close relative of the other person, would you be ok with that? Because yeah, it is possible the judge could be completely unbiased, but I dont think anyone in their right mind would think that it would be appropriate for a judge to preside over a case where a close relative of theirs could personally benefit.
Totally agree. The issue now becomes whether anybody can really be impartial? Probably not, and that is the point.
I think everyone has biases, but I also think it is possible to look at the matters of a case and come to your conclusion based on the merits of the case. But when you are talking about someones wife, then I dont think that person should be involved with any aspect of a case she is involved with at any level.
Hahahaha you are finally starting to get it.
These people you are debating are f*cked in the head mentally incapacitated traitorous cult members. You can not change their minds with facts, because they live in an alternate reality.
I've been trying to tell you this since you got here. You can't debate with morons.
Could you do that? If a case implicated your wife in a crime and you were the judge, how would you respond?
I would recuse myself, but I also assume the powers at be would make sure I wasnt the one presiding over the case. I dont know if that is possible with the SC though, since they are highest legal entity. Roberts might have some authority to force people to recuse themselves, I honestly dont know, but ultimately the person directly involved should have the professionalism to recuse themselves. I honestly think, if we werent in such partisan times, that this would be a major controversy that historians would be writing about years from now.
But also to be clear, she wasnt accused of a crime in the 1/6 ruling. It was just about whether Trump had to turn over certain documents or not, but really had nothing to do with her specifically. The question, especially with what we know now, is why did Thomas rule the way he did? He was the only one to dissent, which at least raises some serious questions, because it is possible he knows his wife will be a part of some of those documents. If that is the case, he needs to resign, and we certainly need to find out if that was the case or not.
If you have read her texts, she was essentially trying to make sure Trump's people knew if this went to the SC, they would win. Obviously, we dont know that for sure, but considering her husband would be one of the people ruling on it, I think it is pretty disturbing for her to even be pushing that idea to Trump's inner circle.
It isnt about good guys or bad guys. It is about trying to maintain impartiality with the highest court in the land.
You and your party have excused some of the most vile and reprehensible behavior over the last 5 years and yet you want to get all high and mighty because someone’s wife texted a WH staffer that had no power to actually do anything about it anyways? Spare me your false piety. You can only cry wolf for so long before people stop caring.
No justice is impartial. and the very few that are at least down the middle are attacked from both sides.
Clarence Thomas Sole Dissenter as SCOTUS Allows Trump's Docs to Be Seen
The order paves the way for 700 documents related to the events of January 6 to be transferred to the committee.
www.newsweek.com
Just trying to read between the lines here since Thomas didn't publish a dissenting opinion: maybe it's possible that he didn't agree with the text of the majority opinion because he thinks former presidents should maintain executive privilege. Or maybe he didn't agree that the investigation was in the nation's best interests. I honestly don't know and it does seem kind of sketchy that he didn't write anything, but there could be another explanation that is law related.
Or maybe he doesn’t want to play along with the Democrats’ plan to continue to paint 1/6 as the worst thing to ever happen in the history of the US in an attempt to win a midterm election. It’s not like we haven’t seen plenty of politically-motivated votes from Kagan and Sotomayor and it’s not like they don’t talk to politicians all the time too. This is straight out of the Alinsky playbook where you try to pin your opponent to a moral code that you yourself don’t live by.Clarence Thomas Sole Dissenter as SCOTUS Allows Trump's Docs to Be Seen
The order paves the way for 700 documents related to the events of January 6 to be transferred to the committee.
Just trying to read between the lines here since Thomas didn't publish a dissenting opinion: maybe it's possible that he didn't agree with the text of the majority opinion because he thinks former presidents should maintain executive privilege. Or maybe he didn't agree that the investigation was in the nation's best interests. I honestly don't know and it does seem kind of sketchy that he didn't write anything, but there could be another explanation that is law related.
Possible. I honestly can't say for certain what his motives were, which is why I wish he had wrote a dissent. He almost always does, so sitting this one out seems odd. In his defense, if he had recused himself then that would have indicated that he knew about his wifes activities on this, and that would have led to the same calls for his removal anyway. No-win situation.
Clarence Thomas Sole Dissenter as SCOTUS Allows Trump's Docs to Be Seen
The order paves the way for 700 documents related to the events of January 6 to be transferred to the committee.
Just trying to read between the lines here since Thomas didn't publish a dissenting opinion: maybe it's possible that he didn't agree with the text of the majority opinion because he thinks former presidents should maintain executive privilege. Or maybe he didn't agree that the investigation was in the nation's best interests. I honestly don't know and it does seem kind of sketchy that he didn't write anything, but there could be another explanation that is law related.
Nobody knows since he hasnt spoken about it, to my knowledge anyway.
Ginni Thomas’s texts: Does a spouse’s opinion disqualify a Supreme Court justice?
As with many controversies, this story calls for a bit less shock and a bit more scrutiny.
thehill.com
