No. All three of you at some point have used the assertion of 'you are disagreeing with us who are all lawyers' as if that of and by itself means you guys are correct and I am wrong.

As i point out in the post above, if you, Rococo, do not know who those others lawyers are and how they have revealed themself on a forum, whether they seem knowledge or honest, or not that association you create, may in fact reduce your credibility and not help it.

For instance we can definitively say jjjou' knowledge in at least one aspect of the law is well below mine in that he clearly had no clue that individual Justices sit over each appellate court and have immense power to decide INDIVIDUALLY what happens with those emergency appeals. He assumed the full court ALWAYS was involved. That cannot be denied from what he wrote.

He also is a liar, which cannot be denied.


So if in an argument you say 'but jjjou and I both agree and we are lawyers', you may be perceived as a good and knowledge lawyer and he may be perceived as a bad and lying one, and hte net result is you then lose credibility on the position you are asserting.

If only we still had a cite or ban rule for lying pieces of **** like you. God damn you are dumb.

The animal warden in my town has immense individual power over loose animals and animal waste, that does not mean he is a powerful politician.

What makes you think that I don't know who the other lawyers are? And what makes you think that I am aligning myself with jjjou, much less aligning myself with him because he is a lawyer? I REALLY, REALLY have no problem disagreeing with a lawyer. It happens all the time.

I am not at all concerned. I am highly confident that I am perceived as more credible than you are by nearly every regular poster in this forum.

Has CP ever moved on entirely from any subject unless his next move would be to admit he was wrong?

I maintain that there is an absurdity and profound lack of understanding of this statute and point...


If anyone believes simply because there is no way to force a SC Justice to recuse and ultimately they alone decide means they are wrong not to.

And to the secondary point that you might have 'other reasonable people' disagree I think that is also a flaw in logic to think that is what is at issue.

I invite anyone to read the below disclosure that is coming out John Eastmans emails and say that Thomas should and has every right to stay on these cases if HE alone believes he is fine and conflict free and especially if there are others on the right (also considered 'reasonable men') who will argue he is fine to.

So if for one half the country reads the below and feels he has biad and should recuse, too bad, as 1/3rd thinks he does not and more importantly, he thinks he does not.

The Statute was never meant to be litigation about which side is correct and without a determination he does not have to recuse. It was always meant to be about the 'OTHERS'. Not the judge, and not his supporters. But those who HAD REASONABLE DOUBT. Those who MIGHT perceive bias and THEIR right to not be adjudicated under that doubt.

The standard Rococo supports means if a large percent of the country thinks the below is sufficient for recusal, but certain others do not, that it is not wrong for Thomas not to recuse in cases around that issue as long as Thomas believes it is not wrong. And lawyer or not I think Rococo is deeply wrong on that and that if you polled most lawyers in this area they would not agree with his position he has been saying here.








Trump lawyers saw Justice Thomas as 'only chance' to stop 2020 election certification
“We want to frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion saying Georgia is in legitimate doubt,” Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro wrote in an email exchange.


The emails were part of a batch that lawyer John Eastman had sought to withhold from the Jan. 6 select committee but that a judge ordered turned over anyway, describing them as evidence of likely crimes committed by Eastman and Donald Trump.

Sorry but all ready cited so no ban even under your standard.


My question to Rococo which you replied to....


I say above Roberts HAD THE POWER over this case as the SC who sits over the DC District court emergency appeals.


You then replied Roberts has no such power and is not the boss of other Justices and thus cannot make any such decision.


So cited, and no ban.

You were an idiot and you were wrong and now you need to try and lie and gaslight to cover it up.

As i stated you and all the others have made reference to comments like '...and you are disagreeing with us all, the lawyers' on multiple occasions, as a way to suggest my continuing in my view was absurd, or wrong or somehow to be diminished.

That IS aligning yourself. If I am in a dispute with you guys over entrepreneurship and I cite that it is wrong or ridiculous or otherwise off that you guys keep disagreeing when this other entrepreneur, who just chimed in agrees with me, then I am 'aligning myself' with him. We are asserting a group appeal to authority. Suggesting that because there is more than one of us with this experience who agrees, that then is reason for you to concede and stop disagreeing.

That is just silly. And yes YOU also do that.

You tell em qp! These guys don't know you're also chief of complicated surgery on 2p2, lead aerospace kaboom engineer and resident psychiatrist at arkham. Add to your resume senior partner at hamlin, hamlin & mcgill as well as director of deranged posting on 2p2 and these guys should hand you the respect you earned and deserve

I have spoken about the power of simply a STAY. A Chief Justice inserting himself to "Stay' a matter which may later be resolved.

At least one of our esteemed lawyers here seem to not think a 'stay' has any meaning and thus reacted emotionally to the idea that a Justice, could be asserting bias and that it was wrong to even suggest there was a basis for recusal.


I invite you all to read the below notes coming out of Eastmans emails, as to how THEY viewed the power and strategy behind getting a 'stay'...










and i invite to consider this idea that if 'lawyers' disagree the layperson should acquiesce and not keep making his arguments and it is some type of wrong if he does.

These are two real issues in this exchange that i have been on the other side of against the 'lawyers' and i have substantiated in both of those that my position has proved out to be the correct one. Not theirs.

To state the obvious, you can't talk about how meaningful a stay is without discussing the context.

In one scenario, a stay might be close to meaningless. In another scenario, a stay might be enormously important, even dispositive.

Would you consider a three day administrative stay meanful in the context of a grang jury subpoena meaningful? Worthy of serious impeachment discussions?

Indeed.

And given not just Thomas wife potential legal jeopardy in all of this the more that is disclosed... the more texts revealed, the more confidential discussions forced into the open...


Given that the very lawyers pushing Trumps insurrection agenda absolutely believed their only real path to success was thru Clarence Thomas in that one wing of the SC, and him weaponizing DELAYS and STAYS for them....



this idea that there are arguments he should not recuse, when it goes to ongoing issues of Stays when we know for fact ANY delays at this point, can have an impact on both the dissolving of the House Committee and the willingness of Prosecutors to prosecute...


There simply is no denying thomas should not recuse.

All the FACTS align with my arguments and your keep countering with more theoretical 'well IF ...' arguments that make the case why potentially he should not as if the ability to say there are reasons he should not, are meaningful in the CONTEXT of this case.

you realize that the substantiation of your position disappears if we discuss discuss specifics and context and thus why you keep pushing away from that.

Such questions have no place in a recusal consideration.

He either should or should not recuse. if it is a 3 day or 3 month stay or 1 year stay, should not change that decision'.


YOu are searching for meaningless distinctions in the hopes to save your failed position.

Who are you arguing with? I said that I would have recused myself if I were Thomas. No one is suggesting that we should disregard context. No is suggesting that a stay would have been a trivial issue in the scenario that Eastman was cooking up.

I don't care about what you would do.

You are making arguments why it is fine for Thomas to not recuse, despite what you would do based on a flawed interpretation of the Statute that what matters is the settlement of any contention between 'Reasonable men'.

YOu have a fundamentally flawed view of the statute which was never meant to litigate and to see that resolved (or not) before a Justice recuses.

Based on your interpretation if the Justice thinks 'I am fine', and has some biased supporters who think the same no Justice should recuse.

And the opposite is true. It does not matter if the Justice nor his supporters think he is fine. If they see 'reasonable people' on the other side who think he is conflicted the statute is designed for them to err on the side or recusing despite what the Justice and his supporters might think.

the proper test is 'are the people who want me to recuse reasonable or not'.

Not 'are they right' , 'are their arguments sound', 'would they win if we adjudicated this'.

This is not science so your next step is always to argue as if the subjectivity in assessing reasonableness is such a tough line to draw that we cannot make distinction, which is also false.
An example of unreasonable is Trump arguing 'rigged election' because of the lack of ANY merit behind his claims. I don't think anyone would call Lawrence Tribe unreasonable and say there is no merit behind his claims. Disputing his interpretation, does not make him unreasonable. If he is determined to have been wrong after the fact does not make him unreasonable.

The emperor CP declares himself a supreme winner again. You should probably publishing your analysis in the Times before the impeachment hearings so the Congress has a legal blueprint to follow.

You are a joke of a human being. You don't even understand what a fact is, let alone a relevant fact.

I am not making arguments for why it was correct for Thomas not to recuse himself. To the contrary, I am telling you that if I had applied the standard in the statute, I would have landed in a different place than Thomas. In other words, I am telling that you that I don't think Thomas's decision was correct.

All that said, the bolded is not how reasonable person standards are applied in the United States. I have explained how they are applied. You can believe me or not. I really don't give a ****.

Again what you did was give justification for Thomas not recusing, even if you thought he should. Your reasoning was flawed and i pointed it out.

And it is not about me 'believing you' as i have listened to other lawyers and pundits who disagree with your take. I don't have to 'believe' you no matter how much that irks you, being a lawyer. I can still make my assessment considering your words (and I did) and the words of others (I did) and not agree with you. again that somehow that ALWAYS irks you as if i need to just 'believe you' and move on, is your issue and not mine.

Ya but most importantly i was proved right and you embarrassingly wrong.

I will bookmark this for the next time 'The Lawyers' lump themselves in with you thinking it is additive to their argument.

I'm convinced you need therapy, or a dog or ofc a woman or man. Anything really, you're just not right in the head

I mention above that just because people file a motion with the Courts does not mean the Courts have any jurisdiction on the matter. I am not sure everyone beleives me when i say that.

it was a key to Trumps Insurrection plan as they planned to rebuff and reject any court ordered attempts to undue him stealing the election saying the Courts have no jurisdiction and this has to be settled via Congress and thus whether Pence counted the wrong votes or no votes and then Congress voted ia Contingent election, the matter is done. Trump would have been prepared to tell the Courts to 'stuff it'.

Seperations of Powers is a thing and they do matter.

I said that above someone should have told Justice Roberts that (but in a nicer way with regards to him inserting himself in the Ways and Means issue. That is a Congressional Function that is not subject to judicial review in that regard. The 'tax returns SHALL be furnished' if the Committee has legislative purchase is no more subject to a 'prove it' test, then the Court saying they have reason to issue a subpoena for their own purposes and Congress saying 'prove it' first.

Here is a recent example of the House telling the Courts nicely to not act on a motion as they have no jurisdiction coming out of the John Eastman case.


Just an example in case anyone wanted to see substantiation for that point as I have had people here suggest courts can decide whether or not they jurisdiction and that is not true. Not in a way they can just grant themselves power and authority where it is not delineated to them.

The reasonable person standard is fundamental in many legal analyses. Cuepee, unsurprisingly, is botching it.

PS: disagreeing with other lawyers is their favorite past time. The idea Rocco is agreeing with other lawyers out of some kind of tribalism to gang up on CP is silly. CP just doesn’t even have the foundational understanding of law, facts, and sometimes even words, to have a debate on the law.

Maybe CP stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Put it next to your 100 additional Supreme Court Justices theory you were so proud of. It can probably sit between that legal idiocy and your papers criticizing the Florida judge for assigning a special master.