• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ginni Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas' wife, exchanged texts with Mark Meadows about efforts to overturn the 2020 election

jmotivator said:
You miss the point... Ginni Thomas isn't a Supreme Court Justice. Should a Justice recuse themselves because their family member marched in an abortion rights march?
Click to expand...
That depends on whether the family member is party to the matter at hand, as Ginni is in this case.
 
justoneman said:
Weak attempt at distraction. Hunter is going to get indicted. The white house and the press know it so they are trying for something, anything. It won't work because the indictment of the president's son, is gigantic.
Click to expand...
If Trump isn't going to get indicted FFS there's no way Hunter is. We're all dreamin'.
 
justoneman said:
Ha. You are in for a big shock then. There is every indication that Hunter will be indicted.
Click to expand...
As you all have been saying for a couple years now.
The biggest standout for an indictment of Trump is his election fraud phone call. I think they're hoping we'll all just forget about that one. Why is that moving like molasses? That phone call is an instant trial with an immediate conviction.
 
Cardinal said:
That depends on whether the family member is party to the matter at hand, as Ginni is in this case.
Click to expand...
I always know the Republican party is gonna go lower and lower. I just can never predict how so.

This is another great example.
 
justoneman said:
Ha. You are in for a big shock then. There is every indication that Hunter will be indicted.
Click to expand...
The fact that you are sure of this is itself compelling that he won’t be. The right wing’s certainty that Hillary would be indicted after 27 years of nonstop investigations comes to mind.
 
GummyVitamins said:
Ginsburg "dissented" during Trump's public speeches and then issued rulings against his administration and you're still harping over someone's spouse. That's strange.
Click to expand...

No, it's not, your comparison is utterly absurd.
 
justoneman said:
Ha. You are in for a big shock then. There is every indication that Hunter will be indicted.
Click to expand...
You think Joe Biden's DOJ is going to indict the son of Joe Biden before they indict Donald Trump? LOL.
 
TurtleDude said:
Barrett was considered the smartest/best student to graduate from one of the top universities in the USA. That's pretty strong stuff. Kavanaugh had 11 highly regarded years on the Bench-a bench which is second only to the USSC in importance.
Click to expand...
So in other words, you find a way to enhance the achievements of your guys, while overlooking the achievements of Brown Jackson.
The nominee is well qualified, and more qualified than a few of her future colleagues.
 
JMR said:
So in other words, you find a way to enhance the achievements of your guys, while overlooking the achievements of Brown Jackson.
The nominee is well qualified, and more qualified than a few of her future colleagues.
Click to expand...
who is she more qualified than?
 
jmotivator said:
What business? Like the other poster, you fail to see your path past the tip of your nose. Recusal is generally sought when the JUSTICE has a conflict of interest, and then almost always connected to court cases that they had adjudicated or worked on in private practice, which doesn't extend to family who might have an opinion on cases before the court.

If we extended that as carelessly as you'd like to, we'd be digging into the lives of private citizens for potential conflicts on all justices because, to remain a fair court, your stupid desires would be followed evenly.
Click to expand...
No digging is necessary to recognize that Ginny Thomas is a paid lobbyist for many right wing causes and foundations. Are you claiming that Clarence does not know what his wife does for a living?
 
justoneman said:
Of course. They have already assembled a grand jury.
Click to expand...
And when Joe Biden announces his son was "totally exonerated," you'll accept that at face value without question, yes?
 
Individual said:
What was the text of the emails she sent? What was said between her and her husband?
Click to expand...
Well for one Thomas was the only one who dissented from the decision to release the 1/6 documents and a case that was dismissed for election fraud and he said he wanted to hear it. Both were 8-1 decisions. Of course no one knows what they said to each other but no one can convince me that you call your spouse your best friend and they don't discuss the days's events. If anyone does say that I call BS on it

NOTE: Clarence Thomas and Ginni Thomas have BOTH PUBLICLY announced they refer to each other as "best friend"
  • Ginni referred multiple times to Meadows that she has discussed courses of action with her 'friend' and her 'best friend', i.e. Justice Thomas. And Thomas did not have the morals and ethics to recuse himself from the Trump executive privilege case before the court.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
That depends on whether the family member is party to the matter at hand, as Ginni is in this case.
Click to expand...

But she's not. The crime that the Democrats are searching for have targeted someone who has exchanged emails with Ginni Thomas on matters of the election challenge, a tangential connection to the group of people who chose to enter the Capitol... and action that she has also, in prvate, stated is not something she supported.

So really, what you folks are looking for is a kick-in-the-doors Stassi-style guilt by association investigation for a crime you haven't even shown evidence of with the people you want investigated.
 
JMR said:
So in other words, you find a way to enhance the achievements of your guys, while overlooking the achievements of Brown Jackson.
The nominee is well qualified, and more qualified than a few of her future colleagues.
Click to expand...

When the woman who was chosen to champion the causes of women can't define "woman" it would appear that the Dmeocrats stable for judges is rather empty.
 
jmotivator said:
But she's not. The crime that the Democrats are searching for have targeted someone who has exchanged emails with Ginni Thomas on matters of the election challenge, a tangential connection to the group of people who chose to enter the Capitol... and action that she has also, in prvate, stated is not something she supported.

So really, what you folks are looking for is a kick-in-the-doors Stassi-style guilt by association investigation for a crime you haven't even shown evidence of with the people you want investigated.
Click to expand...
It’s not important that her involvement in the case impress you, only that she’s involved.
 
Cardinal said:
It’s not important that her involvement in the case impress you, only that she’s involved.
Click to expand...

No it's important that she is actually involved in the case, not that your conspiracy theory of a crime you believe that might have happened might had involved someone you dislike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom