…in re his wife’s alleged prompting him to support the January 6 rioters, as viewed by his wife’s text, could be fairly described as ten dollars worth of hype wrapped around a quarter’s worth of evidence.
28 thoughts on “The Case Against Justice Thomas…”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Yet, reading the comments from the Massachusetts racists, they’re obviously all sucked into the scam. You can also tell the bias against the people who see through it – those are most likely the “blocked” comments.
Seriously?! Moderation already?! Sheeesh!
Ha! You’ve got to be kidding me! Is this a delayed April fools joke by WordPress?
Similarly….
Did Hope Walz allegedly convince her father. the governor, to block the Minnesota National Guard from protecting Minneapolis during the George Floyd riots?
I personally do not think that is the case. Tim Walz is a calculating politician who knew that a single media image of a lefty white rioter being injured by the guard was far more politically damaging than the entire city being burned to the ground.
Perfectly timed to add more stress to a guy who just got out of the hospital.
Nothing to see here — Justice Thomas was the only vote to block the Jan 6 committee from getting Trump’s papers. Mark Meadows filed a supporting brief. And his wife Ginni’s texts to Meadows were at stake.
This is all fairly troubling. Not in a “we have to impeach Thomas because his wife is crazy” sort of way. But it is telling how deeply this lunacy has spread within relatively respectable parts of the movement and the Republican party.
I think that ALL of the justices need to have the potential “influencers” in their lives exposed and documented.
Really, EI? What gets me is that people like you that are so afflicted with TDS, apparently don’t care about all of the money being wasted on a left wing false flag operation.
The only flags lefties wave are false ones.
^ 147 Republicans in Congress, and the wife of a Republican Supreme Court Justice coordinated to prevent the lawful transfer of power.
Remember the time Ginni Thomas left a nasty message on Anita Hill’s phone demanding an apology. That was wild. Could you imagine trying to explain to Ginni Thomas that you’ve come to a different conclusion on something than she has?
Still 0% interest from Emery in examining the political views of the families of any Supreme Court justice other than Clarence Thomas.
The racism on display is both obvious and ugly.
What happened to Matt Gaetz? Isn’t he due for his two minutes of hate again? Dems gotta keep their troops on the edge of frothing hatred all of time or they’ll start realizing that they control the house, the senate, and the presidency, and they have used that power to turn the country into a shit pile of failures at home and abroad.
In 1923, Gordon Hewart, then Lord Chief Justice of England, authored an aphorism which has since become famous and sets the standard for probity in judicial matters:
“It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
Hewart then went on to say this:
“Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.”
“Even a suspicion”. Seemingly Justice Thomas thinks that such high standards and ethics don’t apply to him or his wife, and apparently Woolly agrees.
“Recusal” is the act of a judge deciding not to participate in a case before the court. At the state and federal court level, the requirement to recuse oneself is governed by a patchwork of rules and laws.
But the Supreme Court is not bound by any of those rules or laws. The American system of government was intentionally designed that way. The concept of federal supremacy was intended to prevent some random state legislature or governor from unilaterally suspending the Constitution whenever they felt like it. Well, except for Covid; then the Governor can do whatever he wants.
But aside from that, there is no legal basis for Democrats to demand any Supreme Court justice recuse him/her/its self from hearing a case before the high court. Attempting to impose a limit on the justices who can hear a case is an attempt to skew the political leaning of the court – court ‘unpacking’ if you will – hoping to achieve by political means what cannot be achieved by legal means.
In other words, it’s cheating and therefore typical Progressive behavior. Not surprised E is all over it.
As JD notes — the Code of Conduct for United States Judges does not explicitly apply to Supreme Court Justices, it is important to note why Justice Thomas should recuse himself from any cases regarding the January 6th attack on Congress. Commentary Canon 2A states:
“An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.”
The fact that his wife was involved in the attempt to overturn a free and fair election leads many people to view Justice Thomas’ participation in those cases as improper due to the appearance of a conflict of interest and possibly and actual conflict of interest.
Emery is on one of his smearing sprees again.
Smear away!
Too bad voters don’t care about the January 6 commission.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
So why are democrats obsessed with January 6th? Simple. They want to get Biden’s AG to charge Trump with a crime, which they can then use to claim that Trump is legally barred from running for public office.
This is one of the “tells” that their claim to be defending “our democracy” is horse shit. They very much want to control who you can vote for and who is allowed to run for office, the will of the people be damned.
Should Justice Thurgood Marshall, a Black man who successfully argued Brown vs. Board of Education to the Supreme Court, have recused himself from hearing cases involving civil rights?
Should Justice Elana Kagan, a woman widely believed to be a lesbian, have recused herself from hearing the gay marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges?
“Forum shopping” is when a litigant tries to bring the case in an alternative court hoping for a friendly judge, knowing his legal case is weak. “Demand for recusal” is when a litigant tries to remove all but friendly judges, when there’s no alternative court to go to. Democrats are desperate to rig the process because they know they have a weak case and fear the outcome of an honest decision.
So they’re trying to cheat, as usual.
Don’t worry JD, before his term is up, Jughead will stack the court to assure progressive rule from the bench no matter who supercedes the mental midget.
The fact that his wife was involved in the attempt to overturn a free and fair election
Universal constants: Gravity, the speed of light in a vacuum, and Emery declaring something as “fact” when it’s not.
These aren’t complaints against Clarence Thomas’s politics, Joe Doakes, they are complaints against the politics of his wife.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg was an ACLU lawyer in the 70s. While employed by the ACLU, she argued over three hundred sex discrimination cases for the litigants.
This is why Emery’s attacks on Thomas’s impartiality are bogus. Even he does not believe what he is saying.
I’m confident Ginny Thomas would slap the lies right out of rAT’s corpulent body if he was within arms reach.
Many such cases.
Like every DemoCommie making an issue of Ginny Thomas’ texts, Emery’s racism is on full display. They upset that there is a conservative, black Supreme Court justice that’s married to a white woman. Therefore, he must be destroyed.
Too much political power is concentrated in one judicial tribunal and this power lacks accountability to democratic process (only to partisan obstruction).
The Constitution gives the Congress the power to determine and set jurisdiction of federal courts. The Supreme Court has an implied right of judicial review, not a specified right. Congress should consider setting up a Constitutional Tribunal of justices appointed for a term of years by the House, the Senate, and the Executive to judge the constitutionality of laws and hear appeals based on that issue. The Supreme Court would hear regular appeals not based on fundamental constitutional objection.
Another approach would be a constitutional amendment to allow for Congressionally set terms of office for all federal judges.
Emery translated: the Supreme Court sometimes rules in a way I don’t want and has people I don’t like, so we’ll change the ground rules.
The Democrats will never reform the court to make it more accountable to the people.
Never.
They have no problem with the power of the court or even lifetime appointments. What they have a problem with is the court having, even a potentially, a veto held by constitutional conservatives — not Republicans.
The Democrats have major problems with the constitution. They don’t like the fact that it sets hard limits on the power of the federal government, and they don’t like that changing the constitution is a very difficult process. It is difficult because it requires that any amendment must have broad and deep support to be incorporated into the constitution.
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, can literally change the meaning of the constitution with the stroke of a pen. Liberals like that.
But the changes that liberals would like to see in the constitution aren’t popular. It’s kind of baked into the cake of Progressivism. If the majority is on your side, you aren’t progressive, you are the establishment, you are among the majority of citizens, not the progressive vanguard.
A supreme court that was actually responsive to national small-d democrat pressure would not approve of abortion on demand, or affirmative action, or increased gun control.
E’s 5:23 demonstrates once again the failure of modern education to teach constitutional principles.
The reason federal judges have a lifetime appointment is specifically to avoid them being subject to local politics and elections, to remove the influence of the mob so decisions can be made with a sober and rational head. We don’t need a court that looks like the people or votes like them, we need a court that makes clear heded decisions free from outside pressure and threatening influence. See, for example, the kangaroo courts of St. George of Fentanyl.
Article I gives Congress the power “constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.” They can’t usurp the Court’s power by setting up a shadow Judicial Branch of Government any more than the Supreme Court could set up a “Judicial Parliament to Establish Proper Laws and Procedures” where judges would make laws which Congress would be powerless to affect.
Whoever you cribbed these ideas from, is deluded.
With KBJ confirmation all but certain, rise of the Supremes as the defacto puppetmasters is fete accompli.
Usually happens when hate fogs the windscreen.
Ginni Thomas has been a campaigner and fundraiser for more than a decade, her support of conspiracy theories is nothing new and has not been cause for national controversy before.
Or rather, it has always been highly controversial and now some of the dirt spills into the open. That’s another way of looking at it.