• 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!

Justice Clarence Thomas should not only recuse himself he should resign and Ginnie should be prosecuted .....

RIP U.S. Democracy said:
Clarence Thomas was the one dissenting vote when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that White House records could be released to the Jan 6 Committee.

Thomas obviously should have recused himself from the case due to his idiot wife and he should definitely be forced to resign his Supreme Court seat.
Click to expand...
If he were a smart man, he would have simply voted with the other 8 and we wouldn't be discussing this right now. His wife's texts were going to be released regardless, so his dissenting vote accomplished nothing but putting a spotlight on him.
 
Michael Cole said:
If he were a smart man, he would have simply voted with the other 8 and we wouldn't be discussing this right now. His wife's texts were going to be released regardless, so his dissenting vote accomplished nothing but putting a spotlight on him.
Click to expand...

No. We would still be talking about it.
But the rationale for recusal would be different.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Mark what record? There is no allegation that Mrs. Thomas participated in any riots.
Nor is she being charged with anything.
Click to expand...

Which is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the issue of Thomas recusing himself. He ruled in a case that had a DIRECT impact on his wife. The Code of Conduct for federal judges (I know this does not apply to justices) is plain and clear:

(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

The fact we are here discussing Thomas makes it apparent his actions have at least conveyed the impression he used his position to rule for a family member.
 
BlueTex said:
Which is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the issue of Thomas recusing himself. He ruled in a case that had a DIRECT impact on his wife. The Code of Conduct for federal judges (I know this does not apply to justices) is plain and clear:

(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

The fact we are here discussing Thomas makes it apparent his actions have at least conveyed the impression he used his position to rule for a family member.
Click to expand...

I linked to this elsewhere:

www.newsweek.com

The Baseless 'Recusal' Attack on Clarence Thomas

Many judges are married to people who work in politics and public policy, and they frequently decide cases on which their spouses have opined.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 
Athanasius68 said:
No. We would still be talking about it.
But the rationale for recusal would be different.
Click to expand...
Point is, his dissent was foolish and looks like a smoking gun. If he had voted with the rest of the Court, he'd have a legitimate case that recusal isn't necessary. Not so much now.
 
BlueTex said:
Are we supposed to be impressed by the opinion of Mike Pence's attorney? Did Mark Paoletta work on the team preparing for Clarence Thomas's confirmation?

Loading…

www.schaerr-jaffe.com
Click to expand...

As the article points out, justices have more than willing to rule on issues in which they have a personal and professional interests.

If the argument should be the standards should be tightened to impact ALL justices, so be it (but that itself will cause problems), but that isn't what is being argued, now is it?
 
Michael Cole said:
Point is, his dissent was foolish and looks like a smoking gun. If he had voted with the rest of the Court, he'd have a legitimate case that recusal isn't necessary. Not so much now.
Click to expand...

I am not on board with this smear campaign.
 
Athanasius68 said:
As the article points out, justices have more than willing to rule on issues in which they have a personal and professional interests.

If the argument should be the standards should be tightened to impact ALL justices, so be it (but that itself will cause problems), but that isn't what is being argued now, now is it?
Click to expand...

Bullshit.. It's pretty stunning the lengths some will go to defend Thomas... In NONE of the cases Paoletta cites were the judges ruling on cases where their spouses were directly involved. Ginni Thomas's text messages were part of the documentation that Thomas was ruling on.
 
Michael Cole said:
Okay. Care to address my points?
Click to expand...

I have addressed it.

His opinion assumes either:
1. He wrote it so as to protect his wife (which makes no sense given that these decisions are not secret from each other. He knew he was going to lose).
2. That it would have been appropriate had he joined the majority opinion.
 
BirdinHand said:
Nothing but a witch hunt.
Click to expand...
This is a dead giveaway.

Only one side uses the term, and I can't find any Biden supporters using it in any of the Hunter's laptop threads.

Whether Ginni Thomas is a witch is entirely irrelevant. (smart money says she is)
 
BlueTex said:
Bullshit.. It's pretty stunning the lengths some will go to defend Thomas... In NONE of the cases Paoletta cites were the judges ruling on cases where their spouses were directly involved. Ginni Thomas's text messages were part of the documentation that Thomas was ruling on.
Click to expand...

Of course they were directly involved; Kagan was directly involved with Obamacare, Breyer with the sentencing commission, Ginsberg no doubt enjoyed an enhanced personal lifestyle from the additional paycheck her husband brought in from the lawfirm that argued before her.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Of course they were directly involved; Kagan was directly involved with Obamacare, Breyer with the sentencing commission, Ginsberg no doubt enjoyed an enhanced personal lifestyle from the additional paycheck her husband brought in from the lawfirm that argued before her.
Click to expand...


In ANY of these cases was EVIDENCE from their spouses affected by the ruling?
 
Athanasius68 said:
I have addressed it.

His opinion assumes either:
1. He wrote it so as to protect his wife (which makes no sense given that these decisions are not secret from each other. He knew he was going to lose).
2. That it would have been appropriate had he joined the majority opinion.
Click to expand...
I mentioned nothing of the sort. Here, try again.

Michael Cole said:
If he were a smart man, he would have simply voted with the other 8 and we wouldn't be discussing this right now. His wife's texts were going to be released regardless, so his dissenting vote accomplished nothing but putting a spotlight on him.
Click to expand...
Athanasius68 said:
No. We would still be talking about it.
But the rationale for recusal would be different.
Click to expand...
Michael Cole said:
Point is, his dissent was foolish and looks like a smoking gun. If he had voted with the rest of the Court, he'd have a legitimate case that recusal isn't necessary. Not so much now.
Click to expand...
???

Do you not agree that a lone dissenting vote to shield a spouse's documents looks like a smoking gun? Do you not agree that the wise thing to do would have been to simply vote with the Court? What has Clarence Thomas accomplished by dissenting? Loyalty to his wife?
 
He should recuse himself but he likely won't.

I posted this on the other thread but it belongs here too.

Trump supporters will never admit that justice must not only be impartial justice must be perceived as impartial when it comes to Trump and the events of the 6th......except of course when it is them perceiving that a judge is biased against their causes. They are forever complaining about the bias of Democrat appointed judges. Hell, they even scream some sort of bias when Republican judges rule against Trump on election matters. They need to believe the election was stolen, they need to believe Trump had nothing to do with what happened on the 6th, they need to believe the 6th wasn't that big a deal, they need to believe Trump is a victim. It is a true and desperate need we see daily.
 
BlueTex said:
In ANY of these cases was EVIDENCE from their spouses affected by the ruling?
Click to expand...

Ohhhhhh-- I see.
The standard when it comes to Justice Thomas, its the APPEARANCE that matters.
When it comes to Justice Kagan et. a; the appearance itself does't matter. What matters if any corrupt impact on a ruling can be proven notwithstanding the appearance.

Forgive me if I call that standard bullshit.
 
Michael Cole said:
I mentioned nothing of the sort. Here, try again.




???

Do you not agree that a lone dissenting vote to shield a spouse's documents looks like a smoking gun? Do you not agree that the wise thing to do would have been to simply vote with the Court? What has Clarence Thomas accomplished by dissenting? Loyalty to his wife?
Click to expand...

perhaps the problem is that you assume he was motivated by corrupt reasons
 
Michael Cole said:
what a great non-response i'll take that as agreement (rather than the pathetic sign of defeat that it is)
Click to expand...

That is the appropriate response.
The claim is being made that Justice Thomas is being motivated by corrupt purposes.
Perhaps you are wrong about that.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Ohhhhhh-- I see.
The standard when it comes to Justice Thomas, its the APPEARANCE that matters.
When it comes to Justice Kagan et. a; the appearance itself does't matter. What matters if any corrupt impact on a ruling can be proven notwithstanding the appearance.

Forgive me if I call that standard bullshit.
Click to expand...

LMAO... He was RULING on EVIDENCE from his wife.. Good lord... the bullshit is amazing... There is NO APPEARANCE here. His wife's text messages were part of the EVIDENCE
 
Thomas's best friend and spouse is involved in some pretty disturbing conspiracy fodder. Its difficult to believe that he hasn't gone down that rabbit hole as well. He is truly a danger to legitimacy of the Supreme Court. He should be impeached.
 
Razoo said:
www.vanityfair.com

Calls for Recusals, Resignations, and Even Impeachment: Democrats Escalate Ethics Campaign Around Clarence Thomas

“This is a tipping point,” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said following revelations about Ginni Thomas’s conspiracy-riddled texts urging a high ranking Trump White House official to overturn the 2020 election results.
www.vanityfair.com www.vanityfair.com
Click to expand...

I don't agree that Mrs. Thomas should be charged with a crime. Being an anti-American moron isn't a crime. She's free to advance the Big Lie and pretend Trump won the election.

Her husband is a different story. He didn't commit a crime either. But not recusing on a case that directly impacts his wife was wrong.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Ohhhhhh-- I see.
The standard when it comes to Justice Thomas, its the APPEARANCE that matters.
When it comes to Justice Kagan et. a; the appearance itself does't matter. What matters if any corrupt impact on a ruling can be proven notwithstanding the appearance.

Forgive me if I call that standard bullshit.
Click to expand...

Are you going to back up your claim about Jane Ginsburg or not? I've asked you 4 times and you are ignoring it. So that's your admission that you lied (which I already knew). Talk about bullshit.

I also already told you that Kagan was never tasked with ruling on a case that directly involved and impacted anyone in her family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom