• 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!

McConnell says calls for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from 1-6 related cases are "inappropriate pressure campaign"

MaryP

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
22,538
Reaction score
20,801
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday decried criticism of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, dismissing Democratic-led calls for the jurist to resign or recuse himself from January 6, 2021-related cases as an "inappropriate pressure campaign."

The Kentucky Republican — who voted to confirm Thomas to Supreme Court in 1991 and played a leading role in installing three conservative jurists to the court during President Donald Trump's tenure — rejected the concerns as a "coordinated effort to nullify" the justice's presence on the court.

"The left's quest to delegitimize the Supreme Court found its latest outlet," McConnell said on the Senate floor. "Washington Democrats are now trying to bully this exemplary judge of 30-plus years out of entire legal subjects, or off the court entirely."



While I agree that resignation or impeachment is going too far and may well have an underlying wish to get one more liberal justice on the Court, I find it hard to believe Mitch can't see the argument for recusal.
 
I'll be fair to Mitch and point out he also spoke out against Trump's comments that being hispanic should cause judges to recuse themselves.

 
McConnell knows Thomas should recuse himself. He'll even knows, and has publicly said Trump is promoting a big lie.....he just cares more about power than anything else. Disgraceful!. Where are the Repubicans with integrity?
 
While I agree that resignation or impeachment is going too far and may well have an underlying wish to get one more liberal justice on the Court, I find it hard to believe Mitch can't see the argument for recusal.

It's not going too far at all. His wife was intimately involved in the Jan 6 plot to overturn the election, as her text messages to Mark Meadows shows. Thomas should have recused himself from all cases involving Jan 6.
 
I'll be fair to Mitch and point out he also spoke out against Trump's comments that being hispanic should cause judges to recuse themselves.

True, but I think there is a much stronger argument for conflict of interest here than solely being born a second generation Hispanic. Ginni is up to her eyeballs in Stop the Steal, if not the Capitol riot.
 
It's not going too far at all. His wife was intimately involved in the Jan 6 plot to overturn the election, as her text messages to Mark Meadows shows. Thomas should have recused himself from all cases involving Jan 6.
What if he recuses himself now? Still resign?
 
I'll be fair to Mitch and point out he also spoke out against Trump's comments that being hispanic should cause judges to recuse themselves.


Yeah, but what else was McConnell going to say about it? Trump's comments were obviously racist. There was no sugarcoating it.
 
What if he recuses himself now? Still resign?

Yes, because the damage is done. He's waited way too long to respond. He is doing significant damage to the integrity of the Court.
 
Bet you dollars to donuts if a liberal Justice's spouse had done the same thing, the Dems would be mighty silent.

And you would lose that bet.

But your hypothetical situation wouldn't occur, since liberals don't believe in fantasy stolen elections with no evidence like idiot Trumpsters do.
 
There is no justification for a recusal. The law that governs the basis for a judge to do so with respect to spouses, deals with financial or legal stakes at question.
Neither of which exist here.

Moreover, the political calls for him to recuse only work one way; Justice Kagan served in Obama Admin and drafted the plans to defend Obamacare, did not recuse herself. Justice Breyer served in drafting up the Sentencing Commission, did not recuse himself when the legality of that law reached SCOTUS years later; Justice Ginsberg husband was a lawyer worked at a firm which litigated before SCOTUS and she did not recuse herself in those instances.

 
There is no justification for a recusal. The law that governs the basis for a judge to do so with respect to spouses, deals with financial or legal stakes at question.
Neither of which exist here.

Moreover, the political calls for him to recuse only work one way; Justice Kagan served in Obama Admin and drafted the plans to defend Obamacare, did not recuse herself. Justice Breyer served in drafting up the Sentencing Commission, did not recuse himself when the legality of that law reached SCOTUS years later; Justice Ginsberg husband was a lawyer worked at a firm which litigated before SCOTUS and she did not recuse herself in those instances.


There is a significant difference -- Thomas' dissent regarding release of the White House records to the Jan 6 Committee gives the appearance of impropriety.

In other words, he may have been trying to protect his wife with his ruling.
 
There is no justification for a recusal. The law that governs the basis for a judge to do so with respect to spouses, deals with financial or legal stakes at question.
Neither of which exist here.

Moreover, the political calls for him to recuse only work one way; Justice Kagan served in Obama Admin and drafted the plans to defend Obamacare, did not recuse herself. Justice Breyer served in drafting up the Sentencing Commission, did not recuse himself when the legality of that law reached SCOTUS years later; Justice Ginsberg husband was a lawyer worked at a firm which litigated before SCOTUS and she did not recuse herself in those instances.

But she is directly, openly involved in the Stop the Steal efforts. It was basically her job snd she worked closely with many of the targets of the 1-6 Committee. So whether or not she did anything wrong isn't the point. It's more that anything involving the planning of that movement may involve Clarence Thomas's wife.
 
There is a significant difference -- Thomas' dissent regarding release of the White House records to the Jan 6 Committee gives the appearance of impropriety.

In other words, he may have been trying to protect his wife with his ruling.

Appearance to whom?
Justice Ginsberg daughter helped out Ross Perot's company and even endowed a chair in her honor.
Justice Ginsberg did not recuse when his company appeared before SCOTUS.

If SCOTUS is going to reverse its decision not to impose a 'marriage penalty' on itself, then they should be prepared to apply it equally.
 
But she is directly, openly involved in the Stop the Steal efforts. It was basically her job snd she worked closely with many of the targets of the 1-6 Committee. So whether or not she did anything wrong isn't the point. It's more that anything involving the planning of that movement may involve Clarence Thomas's wife.

So what? Justice Ginsberg was heavily involved with NOW and was a reliable vote for their interests over the years. Who had the greater conflict?
 
Appearance to whom?
Justice Ginsberg daughter helped out Ross Perot's company and even endowed a chair in her honor.
Justice Ginsberg did not recuse when his company appeared before SCOTUS.

If SCOTUS is going to reverse its decision not to impose a 'marriage penalty' on itself, then they should be prepared to apply it equally.

Appearance to whom? Anyone with more than two brain cells.

Your examples require a lot more connecting of dots. They aren't as clear-cut as the Thomas situation. And not nearly as serious as the Thomas situation, either.
 
Appearance to whom? Anyone with more than two brain cells.

Your examples require a lot more connecting of dots. They aren't as clear-cut as the Thomas situation.

The Thomas allegation situation requires jumping over canyons to connect.
Spouses are allowed to have their own opinions
 
The Thomas allegation situation requires jumping over canyons to connect.
Spouses are allowed to have their own opinions

Yeah, sure....that's total bullshit.

Spouses can have their own opinions, but they can't take part in a planned coup against the government, like Thomas' idiot wife did.
 
Yeah, sure....that's total bullshit.

Spouses can have their own opinions, but they can't take part in a planned coup against the government, like Thomas' idiot wife did.

Nothing in the texts say that Mrs. Thomas was part of the riots in any way. In fact, there is one deploring what happened.
 
So what? Justice Ginsberg was heavily involved with NOW and was a reliable vote for their interests over the years. Who had the greater conflict?
How do you have a conflict of interest with yourself? No one is saying Clarence Thomas shouldn't be a conservative. I think people are saying that his wife, due to her job, is likely to be directly involved in some of these cases.
 
Nothing in the texts say that Mrs. Thomas was part of the riots in any way. In fact, there is one deploring what happened.

She was encouraging Meadows to help Trump come up with a plan to overturn the election. THAT is a coup, whether it's violent or not.
 
There is a significant difference -- Thomas' dissent regarding release of the White House records to the Jan 6 Committee gives the appearance of impropriety.

In other words, he may have been trying to protect his wife with his ruling.
Protect her from what?
 
How do you have a conflict of interest with yourself? No one is saying Clarence Thomas shouldn't be a conservative. I think people are saying that his wife, due to her job, is likely to be directly involved in some of these cases.

Ok-- and if she has a direct financial or legal stake over something that comes before SCOTUS, then yes, that is when its appropriate to recuse.
But no such situation exists.
 
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday decried criticism of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, dismissing Democratic-led calls for the jurist to resign or recuse himself from January 6, 2021-related cases as an "inappropriate pressure campaign."

The Kentucky Republican — who voted to confirm Thomas to Supreme Court in 1991 and played a leading role in installing three conservative jurists to the court during President Donald Trump's tenure — rejected the concerns as a "coordinated effort to nullify" the justice's presence on the court.

"The left's quest to delegitimize the Supreme Court found its latest outlet," McConnell said on the Senate floor. "Washington Democrats are now trying to bully this exemplary judge of 30-plus years out of entire legal subjects, or off the court entirely."



While I agree that resignation or impeachment is going too far and may well have an underlying wish to get one more liberal justice on the Court, I find it hard to believe Mitch can't see the argument for recusal.
Well, when that slithering snake Moscow Mitch speaks you know the opposite is the right and just thing to do.
 
Back
Top Bottom