I think this is far more true today than it was 10 years ago, and 10 years before that...

The Right, for decades had bemoaned, "Activist Courts' legislating from the bench as the country saw freedoms increase as well as social benefits to both marginalized groups and the lower classes. There certainly was an element of 'legislating from the bench' but always in a line that, imo, went towards the ideal captured in the Declaration of Independence "..."Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...".

Everyone, enjoyed increased rights and protections and social benefits, in this era.

Those movements towards ""Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." angered the Puretan types who believe they have a right to govern and impose their beliefs on others, so even as the Puretan type enjoyed more freedoms themselves, they felt were angered at their inability to still control the lives of others and have always sought to recapture that power.

I think today we are seeing a raw flex of the Federalist Society decades long subversive plan working as intended.

They have stacked all levels of the judiciary, such that they can steer and file various district courts and move it thru friendly Appellate Courts and then up to a friendly Supreme Court all with members, hand picked and pushed thru by them, often un or lesser qualified Justices who are partisan actors first and jurists, second.

We are seeing the execution of their decades long end game play out right now, as they have a real shot of not only setting back US evolution in the areas of Freedoms and Rights, but also imposing a far more Theocratic Christian State, all under the guise of allowing expansive and unquestioning State Rights, that could see enough electoral College votes to be locked in for generations to come, regardless of the change in demographics or the loss of the popular vote by the GOP.

Dem votes across the board, as a result would be valued at 3/5ths of the GOP votes and POC votes even less if this current push wins out.

the laws are so complicated we need a judge to tell us what they mean. Then that judge needs a panel of judges to tell him what they mean. Then that panel needs another panel and then we have the supreme panel of judges that can overrule all the other judges, even previous supreme court decisions. Real life animal farm, Orwell nailed it.

I think you got it backwards. The problems arise because the Constitution typically speaks in general terms. In other words, the Constitution isn't complicated enough (so to speak).

I speak often of the capture or subversion of the Supreme Court (all levels of Court actually) by the Federalist Society and their Billionaire donors.

It is a point of small contention i have with Rococo, who I think, feels I over state the issue.

I think this time stamped video segment, and the book that will follow will shine immense light on this including the games judicial nominees play to subvert and hide their agendas.




this video lays out a detailed plan, which we can see has played out step by step over decades, with frightening precision showing how much more focused the right and big money special interests have been on implementing a long term agenda, quietly and in the shadows.

A clear case for the impeachment of "Justice" Thomas. I can't imagine anyone being able to make an argument against it.

Especially after he met with Desantis one day before the Row V Wade decision . Oh Wait MSNBC got this one wrong . Though unlike a few folks there at least he apologized hard

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other...4fc746d5e66f6c

As requested lozen.

This is a whatabout GOp talking point that attempts to take the spotlight off of what Justice Thomas is doing by creating a '...whatabout what some reporter did...' derail.

That has nothing to do with my comment, or why Thomas has been allowed to make rulings that potentially involve his wife. My comment also has nothing to do with DeSantis or the abortion ruling.

Fair enough on both comments . Just because you do not like the decisions he renders does not mean he should be impeached . Does he have a crazy spouse ? Yup . Do you have proof that his wife has influenced his decisions ?

Keep in mind 11 democrats voted for his confirmation .

The legal requirement for Judges to recuse in no way requires PROOF or any crime of a family member or those within the judges circle.

The legal requirement to recuse is based on the premise of 'if OTHERS, might rightly perceive a conflict of interest'.

it is not whether you or Judge Thomas agree with those OTHERS, just if they do, as there are lots of judges so they created a system to allow another judge to handle it where no such PERCEPTION would be present.



Even if that perception ended up being wrong after the fact, it would still be proper for the judge to have recuse at the time.



There is a clear line between numerous communications of Thomas wife and all sorts of top GOP officials being investigated for breaking many laws around the 2020 General election. We know for certain she was advocating for actions that could be potentially charged in a larger wide ranging conspiracy plot. do we know if she would be charged or a witness or none of the above. NO. But that is the point. it is all up in the air.

So for Clarence to rule to 'block certain communications for Mark Meadows' or others where it could lead potentially to more exposure to her involvement that could potentially see her charged, is a grave abuse of his position. It was meaningless too as all the other Justices could see his position was BS and they voted in favour regardless so his vote had no impact.


If you will not even recognize this fact above and continue to spin it, I lose all faith in you pretending you are unbiased and trying to be fair and accept you are solely trolling as no one should argue it was right for Thomas to do that. that is not a partisan issue even if Fox tells you it is.

He should be impeached for violating the law, making a ruling that easily could involve his wife. This is the second time he has not recused himself from something potentially involving her.
It doesn't matter if she actually influenced his decisions or not.

I agree it looks terrible but I think the first thing that should happen is the other justices speak up . That may lead to him recuse himself in some of these matters .

We're in some really strange times were everything is political and if your not on our side your evil
It's very sad and I also think the media throws gas on the fire

It does not just LOOK terrible. This is a Justice thumbing his nose at the law and basically saying 'there is no one who has the power to make me follow the law'.


Again, this is not about if Thomas or any of his supporters think he is fine. This is about the 'others' who do not. The reason this statute exists is generally to ensure the accused or on trial feel they are not dealing with a judge who may hold a bias against them.


So if I was to commit a crime against you, and we were in a trial and the potential judge was my third cousin, he should recuse.

Even if the judge said 'I actually do not know him and our families have never met, so I feel I can be fine' and even if I and my supporters all said 'oh we are ok with him as judge and think he is fine', the very fact that YOU might feel bias COULD be in play regardless, is reason for that judge to step down and allow a judge with no such tie or perception to handle the case.

The goal is that if you lose the case you won't have this lingering feeling the fix was in. It is to placate YOU.

So Judge Thomas saying 'n'ah I'm good' is meaningless. It is what OTHERS feel prosecuting or defending or being charged in the case think that matters.

More faux outrage from CP over a procedural motion granting a temporary three day administrative stay.

What is Ginni Thomas's interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of an administrative stay of a Georgia grand jury subpoena of Lindsay Graham?

Irrelevant and has nothing to do with my outrage.

The laws about recusal have nothing to do with you and i agreeing or not that 'in this instance the issue at hand will likely or not have impact on Ginni Thomas'. The law is deliberately written to make such considerations NOT come in to play as then you fall in to subjective areas where honest disagreement can form. You need to step back from any specific or individual case otherwise you fall into traps where one might argue and believe 'in this instance it is fine... there is no reasonable impact' and another person might reasonably believe 'in this instance it is not fine... I can see a reasonable impact.'


The law is very deliberately crafted to ensure those types of scenarios never present and Clarence Thomas is breaking that law and wants people to defend him with 'in this instance it would not matter...'.

Breaking this law and norm may lead to other Justices using the same rational in the future to not recuse and what do you think would happen the first time you jjjou disagree with that Justice as you see issues they do not? Do you think you just accept it as fine as the Justice genuinely believes there is no issue here?

@Rococo what do you think about Thomas' refusing to recuse and offering rulings on these issues?

I am not asking what you think the result might be but rather the defiance of the intent of Title 28, Section 455.

If I were Justice Thomas, I would have recused myself because, at a minimum, perception matters. But jjjou's question certainly is not irrelevant. If there is no reasonable basis to argue that Ginni Thomas's interest could be substantially affected by the outcome of an administrative stay of a Georgia grand jury subpoena of Lindsay Graham, then the statute isn't implicated.

I haven't looked at the situation closely enough to know where there is a reasonable argument that her interest could be substantially affected.

Interesting.

I actually just listened to some legal debate over that and while there was some divergence most felt Thomas should recuse even from the 'stay' not because of what you seem to think the issue is '...no reasonable basis to argue that Ginni Thomas's interest could be substantially affected...' but rather because OTHERS might not understand the distinction you are splitting out here and thus the PERCEPTION could reasonable be to them that Thomas is acting to protect his wife.

And the statute and INTENT is to remove that perception whereas I see you, personally would act on the 'perception' issue but do not think Thomas necessarily should or is wrong not to.

it was explained as '...the intent is not that we assess and litigate and determine or not, if harm is present and thus the Justice should recuse... the intent is long before we get to those questions the Justice has already recused.'


Basically they said 'if we are asking those questions and reasonable people might view it differently... then you recuse'.

The goal is not to be arguing over whether perceptions like the below in quotes are right or wrong, but to AOVID them entirely by removing the source of the perceived conflict...



What jjjou is arguing inevitable could lead to some instances where Thomas makes the call to stay in (like here) and everyone like jjjou' upon analysis agrees 'Clarence was clear of conflict so the call was correct'.

But what happens in the other instance where Thomas makes the next call, jjjou thinks it ok but upon analysis after the fact everyone thinks he was wrong? Including jjjou who now cedes it based on the broader analysis?

Do you say 'Oops' and is that enough? When if the other method of just recusing is used and is not Results Based Thinking dependent, you get a satisfactory result every time?

Pure best practices simply says 'Recuse'.

You do not know how many of those were performed due to the mother's safety or other extenuating circumstances. Though if the child is viable I do agree

She has already testified before Congress about her emails. I have not read that she is a potential defendant but I don't know much about the Georgia case (of course we don't know even know if they will get an indictment). If Lindsay Graham is so involved (as I recall he was) I can't comprehend him ever testifying in the grand jury setting without an immunity deal.

Even so, I still don't see any explanation of a nexis of G. Thomas and the Georgia case. There may be a reason for self-recusal that Thomas should have utilized. Tribe certainly didn't provide it in his tweet and we know CP won't answer the question even if he knows the answer.

You seem troubled by the very idea that this is a judgment call, but whether to recuse oneself on the basis of a conflict of interest in this sort of situation is always a judgment call. What else could it be?

Before you get to impeachment, tell me how his wife has in interest in a subpoena for Lindsay Graham to testify in the Ga case.

I would personally vote to impeach him for not doing his job for ten years, not for granting an administrative motion in the appellate district he is assigned.

As usual, you don't know what the **** you are talking about. I am not arguing about inevitable consequences and ceded nothing. You quoted the law for recusal and have listened to others speak of the intent of the law. But you have not applied the facts to this statute. You probably think G Thomas being on team Trump on the stolen election is enough but the statute requires the spouse to have an "interest" in the matter. Usually that means she is a party or a shareholder to a corporate litigant. So I ask again, what is her connection or interest to the Lindsay Graham subpoena that requires recusal?

Not troubled.

I have heard so many legal experts speak to the norm being to remove the 'judgmental call'. That this...

..explicit was written in a way to say 'it is not the Justices judgement of his potential conflict that matters, and IS the potential judgment of others that matters.


If is fine if you think, ignore that, the Justice himself will decide whether he observes a conflict or not, and I and others can think otherwise.

Now the point also raised in the debate I heard was that if someone wants to be unreasonable they can just say then that any and all accusation or thoughts of bias are then in play and someone simply saying 'bias' means a judge (all judges) should recuse. But that was quickly countered by logic saying that is not what is being said. What is being said. There are reasons these are often more norms than tightly defined.

If you have a situation, so clearly where you can google and see all sorts of top editorial commentary and all sorts of discussion and opinions from legal scholars whether this case, THIS CASE, specifically is one where he should have recused and half say yes and half say No, then it is not about the half that say no. He should recuse because of the half that said yes. Full stop.


You can disagree with that premise, but I fully agree with it. Technically does he have to? No. Can he find support for not doing so, Yes. That entirely misses the point, at least the way I view it.