Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agreed...his far right wife is a QANON wacko...more will come down on sexual harasser Clarence Thomas...Anita Hill was telling the truth and laughing now how karma is playing out!
Well SCOTUS had to consider whether the investigative committee could see the records of communications as to January 6. Meadows filed an amicus brief in the case trying to prevent the committee from seeing the communications. The texts he turned over eventually included those he had with Ginni Thomas!
Needless to say, Justice Thomas was the sole dissenter as to turning over the texts. Legal ethics experts say it was Thomas' responsibility to discuss with his wife what she was doing as to the election and that many people in the public would assume that he knew of her role.
At this point it is clear that he voted on a matter which directly involved his wife and her texts to the White House. That is never supposed to happen.
IMO, you'd have a better argument if it was known that Thomas knew what the content of the text messages included, but that would not have part of the judicial record as it wasn't necessary to be a part of the judicial record.
But even that doesn't convince me as Ginni Thomas being identified as engaging in clearly constitutional behavior--and she seems very vocal of her support for Donald Trump, even to this day--isn't something that I'd imagine Ginni Thomas would care about. In other words, news of these texts being made public isn't something that is a threat to Ginni Thomas; so, even assuming that Thomas knew of the texts, why would he cover them up?
And contrary to what some legal ethics folks have said, Thomas discussing these issues with his wife would have been completely inappropriate as it would involve him directly with her partisan activities and discussions. Assumptions are just that, and nothing more. Sorry, but folks are going to need more than just assumptions to carry the day on this.
For all of the faux outrage that some seem to have here, folks were awfully silent when Justice Ginsburg failed to recuse herself during advocacy cases by her family members or their firms on issues that the Supreme Court was directly taking up.
Why should he? Is his wife a defendant in any January 6th related riot cases?
How in the world can his impartiality be reasonably questioned by the actions that do not affect him or his wife in any material way? Has he spoken on the matter? Has his wife involved him in her decision making and calls? His wife taking a position on a matter does not in any way compute to Justice Thomas taking a position where his impartiality can be questioned.
Some people are questioning his impartiality. I submit that their questioning is not reasonable.
So y'all don't think family members actions should impact those who hold office?
So y'all don't think family members actions should impact those who hold office?
I think that family members can and do live independent lives of their public figure relatives.
Any ties to Justice Thomas have been purely speculative at this point, about what he and Ginni could have talked about or should have talked about, or what Justice Thomas could have known. That doesn't reasonably call into question his impartiality on anything. It's speculation and wishful thinking.
I think that family members can and do live independent lives of their public figure relatives.
Any ties to Justice Thomas have been purely speculative at this point, about what he and Ginni could have talked about or should have talked about, or what Justice Thomas could have known. That doesn't reasonably call into question his impartiality on anything. It's speculation and wishful thinking.
I hope those on this thread apply that same standard to other threads that are floating around out there. Yes, it is possible for one family to do something that doesn't implicate another family member. However, what she did looks problematic to me, trying to influence the outcome of a legitimate election. I'll let the January 6th committee deal with that.
I hope those on this thread apply that same standard to other threads that are floating around out there. Yes, it is possible for one family to do something that doesn't implicate another family member. However, what she did looks problematic to me, trying to influence the outcome of a legitimate election. I'll let the January 6th committee deal with that.
I'll say the same about those--to include those in the media--who were silent about Justice Ginsburg when Fried Frank [the law firm employing Ginsburg's husband] "filed at least three amicus briefs before the Supreme Court while Marty Ginsburg was a member of the firm, and Justice Ginsburg never recused herself. And in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007), Fried Frank represented KSR, which won the case, 9-0. Justice Ginsburg did not recuse.
And if family connections or viewpoints are the concern, Jane Ginsburg, Justice Ginsburg’s daughter and a law professor, wrote an article specifically on a case pending before the Supreme Court (Aereo), and the petitioners cited her work several times. Justice Ginsburg voted consistent with what her daughter advocated, in a 6-3 opinion."
From where I stand, I can expect partisan types to make these claims all day as a means of scoring political points. What is more disappointing to me is when the media clearly takes sides, as they are doing in the Ginni/Clarence Thomas debates, while they were comparatively silent about Ginsburg's families, who were employed by people advocating or actually advocated certain positions on cases that were pending before the Supreme Court when Ginsburg was a member.
I think that family members can and do live independent lives of their public figure relatives.
Any ties to Justice Thomas have been purely speculative at this point, about what he and Ginni could have talked about or should have talked about, or what Justice Thomas could have known. That doesn't reasonably call into question his impartiality on anything. It's speculation and wishful thinking.
It happens to be (you guessed it!) the appearance of impropriety!
I thought you understood what the standard was for judicial conduct.
So if it was a liberal judge's spouse calling the Oval Office asking them to do something -- you would all be okay.
No. Did anyone even imply that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
