I knew Ginni Thomas is a trump supporter, but to this extent??? I have never had any respect for Clarence Thomas, and this confirmas it. He is compromised and should resign or at least recuse himself as other Justices have done. Thanks for the link to the article!
Very good article! Knew she was pro DJIT & far right - but the incidence of right wing groups that she "chairs" or has a finger in? Doesnt look ethical at all.
Abhorrent! And so blatant! Especially HIM! They are dancing on the graves of all the blacks as well as indigenous people, who were never treated with any respect to begin with, or treated with justice, or fairness...How can sit up on his throne and dismiss history? What does he see when he looks himself in the mirror!? He and his wife are laughing at all of us. And laughing at those truly believe in America, and who hope that she can deliver!
I could not get through that article. (Anxiety.) But I got it: It's way worse than most of us knew. In a reality that sits in a close but currently unreachable place, Clarence Thomas is impeached.
It goes much beyond that. His wife is a member of the radical right groups and has had undue influence upon him. He should recuse himself when voting on such topics, but instead stands out as the lone dissenter this time.. He can not give an unbiased view on anything and therefore should be removed from the supreme court.. Perhaps that was her condition for not leaving him after his earlier foray into adultery and rape.
Clarence Thomas should be charged with giving comfort to or, aiding and abetting an alleged or suspected participant of the January 6th attempted insurrection and forced to resign or be removed. Even if sheтАЩs never convictedтАжhe is Guilty by association. He should be above reproach as a тАЬsworn member of the Highest Court in the Nation!тАЭ
At the very leastтАжwhat about violating his Oath of Office, тАЬ I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Nowhere do I see with the exception of OneтАЩs Spouse! Or, тАЬit doesnтАЩt count because I had my Fingers crossed!тАЭ
So long as the participant in the Jan. 6 attempted insurrection was merely ALLEGED or SUSPECTED, the avenue you suggest cannot be pursued. Y'know, 'innocent until proven guilty' is still the rule.
Sympathetically, perhaps, but not on the basis of anything he's actually done. The SCOTUS has always been political (ideally, far less so than the other two branches, and historically that's mostly held true)--that's why it's separate--it's just more unabashedly so now; keeping with our times and political movement that has Georgen Kennan'ed itself into a corner like a rabid animal the past 14 years. Anyway, this was understood by those who created it and it's just part and parcel of being human beings too. But...we don't "remove" people from jobs like that for their political leanings, we do so for malfeasance...this doesn't qualify. This might strike us as being so because it's judiciary, but I'm guessing (purely) wouldn't stand a legal review for one second.
It was instructive to watch the segment on Ginni Thomas on MSNBC last evening, during Rachel's hour, if I recall correctly. Clarence has voted on cases in which there has been a conflict of interest.
The commentator pointed out that SCOTUS has no code of ethics.
AND that John Roberts is ineffectual in managing the court by not having Clarence recuse himself...among other issues indicating an absence of leadership.
I think there are grounds, Robert: he should have recused himself because his wife is a "person of interest" in this ongoing investigation. So signaling, as he does, that he will protect the Trumpists at all costs is a sign that his judicial "independence" is a sham. I am well aware that the judiciary is a political organization (there was an interesting NPR report on this this very morning) but Thomas has been peculiarly empowered to engage in activities that would be regarded as ranging form questionable to nefarious were it someone not on the Bench.
It'll never happen. SCOTUS Justices live in a world of their own. Even Chief Justice Taney, whose Dred Scott opinion helped bring about the Civil War, remained on the Court until his death in 1864.
It would take the revelation of criminal activity on their part to start the ball rolling to get a Justice removed from the SCOTUS. Being offensive and dishonest isn't enough. Something like running a ponzi scheme on the side might do it. It would be up to an investigative journalist to come up with such evidence because neither Congress nor the President can pursue it. But even then, look at all of the evidence which has been gathered about the defeated former president. Getting rid of him through the electoral process didn't seem to work. He's still around spouting lies and sowing dissention and supported by millions.
Isn't Heath's comment getting close to seeing Trump's fingerprints? "Washington reporter for Reuters Brad Heath noted that people close to Sidney Powell said Trump authorized this executive order (13) before his staff talked him out of it." I like to think the Committee is slowly closing in on Trump.
Because the criminal behavior is in so many arenas that it becomes hard to refute, so getting reelected more and more appears to be his private Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card, nothing more.
I canтАЩt wait until there is proven collusion between тАЬDragon LadyтАЭ Ginny and Thomas in turn tied to 1/6/21. She is constantly violating the protocols of the SCOTUS
Why should he, if he was of the same mind as his wife was, and would have voted against it even if he were a bachelor. These Justices must be put out to pasture at a specified age or number of years on the bench.
No, this can work two ways. Final decision rests with the Senate which acts as a check on an out-of-control president. Perhaps that decision, though, should also require House approval. That would make appointments more democratic.
Yes. It seems there should be some way to determine the political leanings of a judge before she/he is nominated. And no one who is terribly conservative or terribly liberal would be appropriate. GWBsuh deliberately looked for "the most conservative black judge," exactly what should NOT be a criterion.
Not necessarily, although in the Thomas' case, I think the spouses do share the same philosophy. But look at James Carville and Mary Matalin, happily married but diametically opposed politically.
He was the lone dissenter against the ruling, and has consistantly ruled against anything that was anti Trump. His wife, on the other hand, is very pro Trump.
IтАЩm wondering the same thing. The real thrust of the article was the release of archived docs that clearly show the planned execution of the coup. Thank you
The sub thread, addressing Justice Thomas, was in response to HCR's posting dated Jan 19, in which she indicated his was the only vote against releasing the archived documents.
George HW Bush asked his team to find for the most extreme, conservative, Black judge they could find because it would jam the Democrats to try to torpedo a Black judge--no matter how extreme or unpalatable he was.
Well Becky, Republicans by the early days of Rush Limbaugh were taught to despise us "Libtards". We have just been living under the delusion that like a not so bright child that somewhere in a stable knee dip in dung there had to be a pony. A favorite joke Reagan used to love telling about Liberals.
Almost certainly true. In this instance, GHWB was playing the same kind of dirty politics that Bush 43 was persuaded (or persuaded himself) to engage in. Pretty disgusting but not surprising. On an interpersonal level, both Bushes appeared decent and even likeable. However, as political animals they (IMHO) definitely weren't.
There was a very strong push to have a black Supreme Court justice to succeed Thurgood Marshall, and it had to get through Congress, and, it was "Daddy Bush" in the White House, and voila!
YouтАЩve тАЬlong wondered whyтАЭ Michael. You are killing me, but, IтАЩll endeavor to enlighten you. Republicans are always; always trying to exploit insane Blacks that are filled with self loathing and who play it out on their own race. When I was in college Blacks called these traitors тАЬUncle TomsтАЭ They are the same blacks that were the trusted тАЬhouse servantsтАЭ of the Antebellum South. They are totally whack people who coincidentally like the mentally ill celeb Kanye West also happen to be Black. Republicans love rubbing these statistical тАЬBlack SwansтАЭin the faces of the overwhelming majority of African Americans as though they were representative of the thinking of a people who have been enslaved, denigrated and cynically exploited since the 1600тАЩs.
And TCinLA is also spot on. Revenge is always a classic Republican motivation
I like Citizen 60's and TCinLA's terse comments on the matter. Your statements "You are killing me" and especially "I'll endeavor to enlighten you" are offputting. There's no need for you to be condescending; it's disrespectful.
Michael, I seldom lose patience and was in fact being both disrespectful and condescending. But, in the interest of civic duty and fair play let me respond in this fashion:
I could understand one forgetting about Bork and the vengeance of Republicans to shove the most right wing whack they could promote and cynically made sure to choose an African American that would incite the use of the "race card" and "public lynching" at that time, might have missed your radar.
I suppose over time one may have lost memory of the public scourging of Anita Hill for honestly relating what a despicable freaking scumbag Thomas is. Finally, even forgetting how our now fearless President (then Senator) shoved her under the bus and then backed up over her was why we now have 6 Republicans on the SCOTUS. Yeah, I see how "you" could wonder.
So, I guess the only explanation I can find for how one might "wonder" about how ClarenceтАЩs rise was came about, must be left to other readers of this thread to decide.
Although I appreciate your admission of condescension and disrespect, I was hoping for a simple apology--however difficult it may sometimes be to do so.
Another example of a mean-spirited comment; it borders on the abusive. Cut it out. In fact, do not comment on any of my future comments, or I will report you to Substack.
Clarence Thomas should be removed from the bench and disbarred. He's been putting both hands on the scales of Justice for long enough.
Yes! And take his wife with him!
An article in The New Yorker about the behind-the-scenes power of Ginni Thomas:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/31/is-ginni-thomas-a-threat-to-the-supreme-court?fbclid=IwAR07Jj9RDv26_ko0URFjDZvrSxvPfDHpyDNtTZnfn6OTapfn-wjctCO4vns
I knew Ginni Thomas is a trump supporter, but to this extent??? I have never had any respect for Clarence Thomas, and this confirmas it. He is compromised and should resign or at least recuse himself as other Justices have done. Thanks for the link to the article!
The most frightening thing is that most of Americans have no clue about thatтАж and of those who do?!
Very good article! Knew she was pro DJIT & far right - but the incidence of right wing groups that she "chairs" or has a finger in? Doesnt look ethical at all.
Abhorrent! And so blatant! Especially HIM! They are dancing on the graves of all the blacks as well as indigenous people, who were never treated with any respect to begin with, or treated with justice, or fairness...How can sit up on his throne and dismiss history? What does he see when he looks himself in the mirror!? He and his wife are laughing at all of us. And laughing at those truly believe in America, and who hope that she can deliver!
I could not get through that article. (Anxiety.) But I got it: It's way worse than most of us knew. In a reality that sits in a close but currently unreachable place, Clarence Thomas is impeached.
Thanks. We just listened to this. Bad taste in my mouth.
OMG ... so disturbing! But necessary reading!
It goes much beyond that. His wife is a member of the radical right groups and has had undue influence upon him. He should recuse himself when voting on such topics, but instead stands out as the lone dissenter this time.. He can not give an unbiased view on anything and therefore should be removed from the supreme court.. Perhaps that was her condition for not leaving him after his earlier foray into adultery and rape.
Or perhaps his votes are the price of being found not guilty
тАЬEarlierтАЭ ? What is that about ?
Anita Hill
wait a minute?! Adultery and RAPE?!? What have I forgotten???
Anita Williams(?) came out with charges prior to him being appointed to the Supreme Court. She used to work for him.
ThanksтАж. I had forgotten!
Thanks for clarification. My memory isn't what it used to be.
Democrats try to take the moral high road, while Republicans don't mind rolling in the dirt to accomplish their goals.
wow!
Clarence Thomas should be charged with giving comfort to or, aiding and abetting an alleged or suspected participant of the January 6th attempted insurrection and forced to resign or be removed. Even if sheтАЩs never convictedтАжhe is Guilty by association. He should be above reproach as a тАЬsworn member of the Highest Court in the Nation!тАЭ
At the very leastтАжwhat about violating his Oath of Office, тАЬ I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Nowhere do I see with the exception of OneтАЩs Spouse! Or, тАЬit doesnтАЩt count because I had my Fingers crossed!тАЭ
Clarence Thomas sits in Thurgood Marshall's seat - that thought alone gives me nausea. A mental midget, with apologies to little people.
So long as the participant in the Jan. 6 attempted insurrection was merely ALLEGED or SUSPECTED, the avenue you suggest cannot be pursued. Y'know, 'innocent until proven guilty' is still the rule.
I will never understand why he is on the bench in the first place, pease don't say 'someone's got the negatives?!!
Sympathetically, perhaps, but not on the basis of anything he's actually done. The SCOTUS has always been political (ideally, far less so than the other two branches, and historically that's mostly held true)--that's why it's separate--it's just more unabashedly so now; keeping with our times and political movement that has Georgen Kennan'ed itself into a corner like a rabid animal the past 14 years. Anyway, this was understood by those who created it and it's just part and parcel of being human beings too. But...we don't "remove" people from jobs like that for their political leanings, we do so for malfeasance...this doesn't qualify. This might strike us as being so because it's judiciary, but I'm guessing (purely) wouldn't stand a legal review for one second.
It was instructive to watch the segment on Ginni Thomas on MSNBC last evening, during Rachel's hour, if I recall correctly. Clarence has voted on cases in which there has been a conflict of interest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IemrkukybJ8
The commentator pointed out that SCOTUS has no code of ethics.
AND that John Roberts is ineffectual in managing the court by not having Clarence recuse himself...among other issues indicating an absence of leadership.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/31/is-ginni-thomas-a-threat-to-the-supreme-court
Thanks for the clip of Mehdi Hassan talking with Jane Mayer. She did some fine investigative work in writing the article.
I just posted her article, in response to a comment above.
Actually, it was Mehdi Hassan, with his sly humor.
Oops. That's right.
I think there are grounds, Robert: he should have recused himself because his wife is a "person of interest" in this ongoing investigation. So signaling, as he does, that he will protect the Trumpists at all costs is a sign that his judicial "independence" is a sham. I am well aware that the judiciary is a political organization (there was an interesting NPR report on this this very morning) but Thomas has been peculiarly empowered to engage in activities that would be regarded as ranging form questionable to nefarious were it someone not on the Bench.
Then how about new regulations to set up ethic guidelines such as lower courts follow.
If it becomes apparent that his vote in this case was intended to protect his wife from liability, that would be a different level of activism.
Who knows what we may discover though, thereтАЩs a lot of pages to peruse!
My gut is that something is going to come outтАж.
It'll never happen. SCOTUS Justices live in a world of their own. Even Chief Justice Taney, whose Dred Scott opinion helped bring about the Civil War, remained on the Court until his death in 1864.
Judges like Taney and Thomas are excellent examples of why the court should be expanded and should have term limits.
Amen!
Ugh
IтАЩm reading yтАЩallтАЩs comments that it canтАЩt be done, but if it were a possibility, what steps would you take to get the ball rolling
1. Dilute Clarence Thomas's influence by expanding the court.--add seats to SCOTUS.
2. Keep up this heat in the court of public opinion.
There is NOTHING that prohibits impeachment, you might remember the decades long effort by the Birchers to remove Earl Warren.
It would take the revelation of criminal activity on their part to start the ball rolling to get a Justice removed from the SCOTUS. Being offensive and dishonest isn't enough. Something like running a ponzi scheme on the side might do it. It would be up to an investigative journalist to come up with such evidence because neither Congress nor the President can pursue it. But even then, look at all of the evidence which has been gathered about the defeated former president. Getting rid of him through the electoral process didn't seem to work. He's still around spouting lies and sowing dissention and supported by millions.
Isn't Trump's magic that he never leaves his own fingerprints on the evidence? He positions others to take the fall.
Isn't Heath's comment getting close to seeing Trump's fingerprints? "Washington reporter for Reuters Brad Heath noted that people close to Sidney Powell said Trump authorized this executive order (13) before his staff talked him out of it." I like to think the Committee is slowly closing in on Trump.
I hope they are! What would make that report become substantive evidence?
Yes, but they are getting sick and tired of him! This party isnтАЩt going to go on much longerтАж
I agree there. He's losing his usefulness to The Grand Plan. The Party is going to cut him off, rather than waste resources on rescuing him.
What makes you say that... just because of the latest BS?
Because the criminal behavior is in so many arenas that it becomes hard to refute, so getting reelected more and more appears to be his private Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card, nothing more.
So doggone frustrating!
I canтАЩt wait until there is proven collusion between тАЬDragon LadyтАЭ Ginny and Thomas in turn tied to 1/6/21. She is constantly violating the protocols of the SCOTUS
Absolutely right, Linda.
His wife attended/helped fund January 6th. He should have recused himself
Why should he, if he was of the same mind as his wife was, and would have voted against it even if he were a bachelor. These Justices must be put out to pasture at a specified age or number of years on the bench.
And shouldn't there be a limit as to how many one president can put on the bench during his term in office?
No, this can work two ways. Final decision rests with the Senate which acts as a check on an out-of-control president. Perhaps that decision, though, should also require House approval. That would make appointments more democratic.
And not bend the rules for one president and go in the diametrically opposite direction for another president.
Yes. It seems there should be some way to determine the political leanings of a judge before she/he is nominated. And no one who is terribly conservative or terribly liberal would be appropriate. GWBsuh deliberately looked for "the most conservative black judge," exactly what should NOT be a criterion.
Really Jack? they donтАЩt collude huh?
Not necessarily, although in the Thomas' case, I think the spouses do share the same philosophy. But look at James Carville and Mary Matalin, happily married but diametically opposed politically.
Well, Carville and Matalin are two soulless sociopathic snakes without any ethics so that makes perfect sense.
And if what you are happen to believe is indeed the case, it still does not prevent them from being happily married and disagreeing politically.
And Clarence Thomas is pretty heavy-handed!
As all of you know herein impeachment is the remedy for removing Clarence Thomas.
Yes, it is totally allowed and should be done. The life appointment is NOT a shield from criminal or seditious behavior.
I am sorry but what provokes this sub thread? I see nothing in HeatherтАЩs article about Clarence Thomas.
He was the sole dissenting voice on the court about refusing Drumpf's claim of executive privilege.
His dissent to releasing the presidential archives, an 8 to 1 decision, was mentioned by HCR in her 1-19 letter which you saw the following morning.
He was the lone dissenter against the ruling, and has consistantly ruled against anything that was anti Trump. His wife, on the other hand, is very pro Trump.
IтАЩm wondering the same thing. The real thrust of the article was the release of archived docs that clearly show the planned execution of the coup. Thank you
The sub thread, addressing Justice Thomas, was in response to HCR's posting dated Jan 19, in which she indicated his was the only vote against releasing the archived documents.
Yes!
Hello?!
George HW Bush asked his team to find for the most extreme, conservative, Black judge they could find because it would jam the Democrats to try to torpedo a Black judge--no matter how extreme or unpalatable he was.
It was GHWB's "fuck you" to the Senate for rejecting Bork.
wow...and he always seemed like such a nice man...
Outside of this, he pretty much was.
He was a phony, I remember Willie Horton. Betcha that was an Atwater present. He, Stone, and Manafort were on the job then
Oh, why can't everybody just play nice!
Becky, you are being sarcastic I presume?
No, I was not being sarcastic. I do wonder that.
Well Becky, Republicans by the early days of Rush Limbaugh were taught to despise us "Libtards". We have just been living under the delusion that like a not so bright child that somewhere in a stable knee dip in dung there had to be a pony. A favorite joke Reagan used to love telling about Liberals.
YES!!! MY GOD!
Almost certainly true. In this instance, GHWB was playing the same kind of dirty politics that Bush 43 was persuaded (or persuaded himself) to engage in. Pretty disgusting but not surprising. On an interpersonal level, both Bushes appeared decent and even likeable. However, as political animals they (IMHO) definitely weren't.
This seems to be a perversion of one in the hand is better than two in the Bush.
Yup, - see my response as well!
REALLY?!?
He was clearly a token right winger. There are not a lot of them
There was a very strong push to have a black Supreme Court justice to succeed Thurgood Marshall, and it had to get through Congress, and, it was "Daddy Bush" in the White House, and voila!
YouтАЩve тАЬlong wondered whyтАЭ Michael. You are killing me, but, IтАЩll endeavor to enlighten you. Republicans are always; always trying to exploit insane Blacks that are filled with self loathing and who play it out on their own race. When I was in college Blacks called these traitors тАЬUncle TomsтАЭ They are the same blacks that were the trusted тАЬhouse servantsтАЭ of the Antebellum South. They are totally whack people who coincidentally like the mentally ill celeb Kanye West also happen to be Black. Republicans love rubbing these statistical тАЬBlack SwansтАЭin the faces of the overwhelming majority of African Americans as though they were representative of the thinking of a people who have been enslaved, denigrated and cynically exploited since the 1600тАЩs.
And TCinLA is also spot on. Revenge is always a classic Republican motivation
Hope this helps.
I like Citizen 60's and TCinLA's terse comments on the matter. Your statements "You are killing me" and especially "I'll endeavor to enlighten you" are offputting. There's no need for you to be condescending; it's disrespectful.
Michael, I seldom lose patience and was in fact being both disrespectful and condescending. But, in the interest of civic duty and fair play let me respond in this fashion:
I could understand one forgetting about Bork and the vengeance of Republicans to shove the most right wing whack they could promote and cynically made sure to choose an African American that would incite the use of the "race card" and "public lynching" at that time, might have missed your radar.
I suppose over time one may have lost memory of the public scourging of Anita Hill for honestly relating what a despicable freaking scumbag Thomas is. Finally, even forgetting how our now fearless President (then Senator) shoved her under the bus and then backed up over her was why we now have 6 Republicans on the SCOTUS. Yeah, I see how "you" could wonder.
So, I guess the only explanation I can find for how one might "wonder" about how ClarenceтАЩs rise was came about, must be left to other readers of this thread to decide.
Although I appreciate your admission of condescension and disrespect, I was hoping for a simple apology--however difficult it may sometimes be to do so.
Well, I thought I'd been the better man, but that went right over your head too.
Another example of a mean-spirited comment; it borders on the abusive. Cut it out. In fact, do not comment on any of my future comments, or I will report you to Substack.