Clarence Thomas has not recused himself from today’s Jan. 6 case

[goldmom]

I just love the people that won't vote for Trump spending most of their time on here defending him and MAGA.

I’m not at all surprised that you’re interpreting it that way.
Wrong but not surprising.

 

[GOHOX69]

An absolute pos. A disgrace a fraud.

Long Dong Silver bisches.

 

[goldmom]

Most of us definitely aren't surprised you've voted for Trump twice either.

I’ve never denied it so you shouldn’t be. 🙄

 

[goldmom]

I mean honestly, Thomas is note the greatest of worries when it comes to being nakedly political in cases. It's Alito. (Even though I did sorta wonder if Gorsuch shot up the chart with his trolling question today about whether pulling a fire alarm during a congressional vote could be obstructing an official proceeding, but then i remembered he's actually pretty good for criminal defendants generally.)

I actually think your point has merit. Alito is
More openly political.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

I mean honestly, Thomas is note the greatest of worries when it comes to being nakedly political in cases. It's Alito. (Even though I did sorta wonder if Gorsuch shot up the chart with his trolling question today about whether pulling a fire alarm during a congressional vote could be obstructing an official proceeding, but then i remembered he's actually pretty good for criminal defendants generally.)

All "worries" at that level should be quickly and universally be shown the door, regardless of who appointed them. Preferably by people within their own political party. There is basically an unending amount of people qualified for the job and only those that meet and maintain the highest ethical standards for themselves should be even considered.

 

[SL Hawk Fan]

Since the SCOTUS loves hypotheticals, I've thought of one. This applies to those clamoring for Thomas to recuse himself.

You get called for jury duty. The judge asks the usual questions about if you have any involvement with any of the parties involved in the case.

Judge: Is there any other reason why any of you should be excused?
Juror: (raising hand)
Judge: Juror #12, why should you be excused?
Juror #12: My wife thinks the defendant is no guilty.
Judge: What do you think?
Juror #12: Well everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
Judge: Would you be able to find the defendant guilty, if the evidence show that beyond a reasonable doubt?
Juror #12: Well, yes, your honor.
Judge: So you can have an opinion different from your wife?
Juror #12: It's possible, your honor. It does happen every now and then, especially if it's work related.
Judge: Juror #12, you are not excused for cause at this time.

Are you just trolling with this load of nonsense?

You can't honestly be trying to compare a random jury pool schmo’s wife’s opinion to a supreme court justice’s wife’s intentional efforts to undermine and affect the very judicial matter at hand.

I only occasionally agree with you, but your positions are usually somewhat defensible; this instance is just pure hogwash and just laughable. Maybe that's what you were going for?

 

[goldmom]

She couldn't actually define left ideology anyway.

OMG 😏
I await your cool and well thought out reasonable definition.

 

[goldmom]

She's been in a rabbit hole.🤣

What’s terrifying is that there are people down there far more reasonable than the leftist screamers up here.

 

[Finance85]

Are you just trolling with this load of nonsense?

You can't honestly be trying to compare a random jury pool schmo’s wife’s opinion to a supreme court justice’s wife’s intentional efforts to undermine and affect the very judicial matter at hand.

I only occasionally agree with you, but your positions are usually somewhat defensible; this instance is just pure hogwash and just laughable. Maybe that's what you we goingfor?

I posed it as a hypothetical for a reason, because I often listen to SCOTUS oral arguments.

Do you really think any of the Justices will form their decision based on their spouses' political leanings?

 

[Jerome Silberman]

I posed it as a hypothetical for a reason, because I often listen to SCOTUS oral arguments.

Do you really think any of the Justices will form their decision based on their spouses' political leanings?

It's as likely as a SCOTUS justice from humble beginnings suddenly striking up long and meaningful friendships with billionaires that result in millions of dollars worth of gifts.

Edit to add: Maybe the SCOTUS(and the rest of us) would do well to leave the hypothetical situations be and focus a little more on what is actually happening?

 

[Tom Paris]

I seriously doubt she has a link to the talking points, so you have an advantage there. I'm pretty sure she could define the ideology, but just doesn't understand how people go that far down a rabbit hole.

Holy shit. None of you guys understand it. Lol.

 

[Tom Paris]

OMG 😏
I await your cool and well thought out reasonable definition.

You voted for a rapist conman twice. Again, I know it wouldn’t matter. You were wrong about him twice. Maybe you’re wrong about more than just that. Maybe let that soak in a bit. Maybe listen to the people who were smart enough not to fall for orange turd’s 35,000 lies.

 

[Aardvark86]

Lol. When you play at that level you tend to have opinions of your own

 

[Huey Grey]

I posed it as a hypothetical for a reason, because I often listen to SCOTUS oral arguments.

Do you really think any of the Justices will form their decision based on their spouses' political leanings?

Yes. Especially justices who love to be on the dole like Thomas.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Lol. When you play at that level you tend to have opinions of your own

 

[DFSNOLE]

Thomas claims he and his wife are the real victims here. Where have you heard that before?

Clarence Thomas says he receives 'nastiness' from critics, describes D.C. as a 'hideous place' | Fox News

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said he and his wife have faced "nastiness" and "lies" in recent years and criticized Washington, D.C., as a "hideous place."

www.foxnews.com

 

[funksouljon]

Thomas claims he and his wife are the real victims here. Where have you heard that before?

Clarence Thomas says he receives 'nastiness' from critics, describes D.C. as a 'hideous place' | Fox News

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said he and his wife have faced "nastiness" and "lies" in recent years and criticized Washington, D.C., as a "hideous place."

www.foxnews.com

I just don't see him recusing himself. He has been on top for so many years, he doesn't think anything he does is wrong. So he doesn't see a need to recuse. If he did recuse, I think he may be concerned that it would open up more investigations into his financial past. So, keep denying. All of this sounds very familiar.

 

[bhawk24bob]

His ignorance would be funny if he didn't have a lifetime appointment to the USSC