Should Thomas recuse himself?

[willdup]

If Thomas determines that Trump is disqualified from running due to the 14th amendment, it could have significant legal repercussions for his wife, who was an active participant pushing for the overturning of the 2020 election.

In the case the led directly to the uncovering of the many (and batshit crazy) communications between Ginni and indicted and cooperating witness Mark Meadows, Thomas was the only justice who ruled in favor of Trump’s efforts to keep those and other J6 communications protected and out of the public record. Not even Alito sided with Trump.

So if you don’t think this constitutes a conflict, please explain your reasoning.

Oh, and please stay on topic. I’m not interested in hearing about other SCOTUS conflicts. If Trump is disqualified for participating in an insurrection, it’s quite possible Ginni could face criminal charges. I believe that makes this case unique.

We also don’t need to debate the merits of the case itself as that has zero impact on the issue of recusal.

 

[atlanta cock#]

If Thomas determines that Trump is disqualified from running due to the 14th amendment, it could have significant legal repercussions for his wife, who was an active participant pushing for the overturning of the 2020 election.

In the case the led directly to the uncovering of the many (and batshit crazy) communications between Ginni and indicted and cooperating witness Mark Meadows, Thomas was the only justice who ruled in favor of Trump’s efforts to keep those and other J6 communications protected and out of the public record. Not even Alito sided with Trump.

So if you don’t think this constitutes a conflict, please explain your reasoning.

Oh, and please stay on topic. I’m not interested in hearing about other SCOTUS conflicts. If Trump is disqualified for participating in an insurrection, it’s quite possible Ginni could face criminal charges. I believe that makes this case unique.

How about Engoron and Chutkan? Incredibly biased. Donors to Biden.

 

[OriginalGatorHator]

How about Engoron and Chutkan? Incredibly biased. Donors to Biden.

OP is intelligent. He understands every justice is an appointed legislator. His problem with Clarence is Clarence is the only right wing legislator who respects the Anglo Saxon legal tradition. OP also understands (a) the 14th amendment was written so that confederates convicted of treason (not that there ever was any) couldn’t run for political office after the war and (b) a conviction of treason is a condition precedent for keeping Trump off the ballot.

But OP doesn’t care because he, like all leftist, understands politics is about rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies. Clarence is his enemy thus he wants him punished.

 

[Chopdawg75]

How about Engoron and Chutkan? Incredibly biased. Donors to Biden.

What do they have to do with Clarence Thomas?

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

If Thomas determines that Trump is disqualified from running due to the 14th amendment, it could have significant legal repercussions for his wife, who was an active participant pushing for the overturning of the 2020 election.

In the case the led directly to the uncovering of the many (and batshit crazy) communications between Ginni and indicted and cooperating witness Mark Meadows, Thomas was the only justice who ruled in favor of Trump’s efforts to keep those and other J6 communications protected and out of the public record. Not even Alito sided with Trump.

So if you don’t think this constitutes a conflict, please explain your reasoning.

Oh, and please stay on topic. I’m not interested in hearing about other SCOTUS conflicts. If Trump is disqualified for participating in an insurrection, it’s quite possible Ginni could face criminal charges. I believe that makes this case unique.

We also don’t need to debate the merits of the case itself as that has zero impact on the issue of recusal.

Big stretch to think that this Colorado lawsuit could lead to his wife being prosecuted. If he’s conflicted there are likely a lot of other reasons, similar to every other one of those judges.

Honest question: do you think it would be a good thing for the country for Trump to be disqualified legally? If he is such an obvious piece of shit, and the facts are so obvious that he’s a criminal and unfit, no chance he wouldn’t get trounced especially in a national election where everyone votes. Wouldn’t disqualifying him at the end of a clearly one sided political legal effort amount to at best the exact same thing he is being accused of?

Even if you disagree with the premise of most of those questions, the basic question remains: Don’t you think the best thing for the country if you want to “get past” the Trump era is to let the Country decide for themselves?

I suspect that’s what even the liberal judges on the court will conclude.

 

[willdup]

Big stretch to think that this Colorado lawsuit could lead to his wife being prosecuted. If he’s conflicted there are likely a lot of other reasons, similar to every other one of those judges.

Honest question: do you think it would be a good thing for the country for Trump to be disqualified legally? If he is such an obvious piece of shit, and the facts are so obvious that he’s a criminal and unfit, no chance he wouldn’t get trounced especially in a national election where everyone votes. Wouldn’t disqualifying him at the end of a clearly one sided political legal effort amount to at best the exact same thing he is being accused of?

Even if you disagree with the premise of most of those questions, the basic question remains: Don’t you think the best thing for the country if you want to “get past” the Trump era is to let the Country decide for themselves?

I suspect that’s what even the liberal judges on the court will conclude.

I respectfully suggested we avoid debating the merits of the case, which is worthy of any number of additional threads.

So your position is that the direct communication between Ginni and Meadows urging him to overturn the election does not not create a conflict for her spouse in a case determining whether those same actions that she was advocating for constituted insurrection?

Take the time to read this recounting of her communications with Meadows, and let me know if you still feel that way.

Read the texts sent by Ginni Thomas to WH official urging overturn of 2020 election

Virginia "Ginni" Thomas is a conservative activist and the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

www.kcra.com

 

[morris123]

Hell no.

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

I respectfully suggested we avoid debating the merits of the case, which is worthy of any number of additional threads.

So your position is that the direct communication between Ginni and Meadows urging him to overturn the election does not not create a conflict for her spouse in a case determining whether those same actions that she was advocating for constituted insurrection?

Take the time to read this recounting of her communications with Meadows, and let me know if you still feel that way.

Read the texts sent by Ginni Thomas to WH official urging overturn of 2020 election

Virginia "Ginni" Thomas is a conservative activist and the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

www.kcra.com

They aren’t adjudicating the criminality of what trump or any “accomplices” did. They are determining whether or not he is eligible to be included on a ballot for office.

I am curious about your opinion on disqualifying him legally.

 

[willdup]

They aren’t adjudicating the criminality of what trump or any “accomplices” did. They are determining whether or not he is eligible to be included on a ballot for office.

I am curious about your opinion on disqualifying him legally.

But the determinant in that decision is whether Trump participated in an insurrection or not, right? If the answer to that question is yes, then at a minimum Ginni could suffer some loss of reputation and potentially income. My understanding is that she has been the primary earner in her family for much of the time Clarance has been a Justice. That’s a conflict.

I’m not a lawyer so I can only go with what I’ve read from people I consider respected legal minds. Luttig makes the case that Trump is disqualified, and I think there is a greater than zero chance the SCOTUS agrees. The thread below is short but insightful.

It will be fascinating to follow.

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

But the determinant in that decision is whether Trump participated in an insurrection or not, right? If the answer to that question is yes, then at a minimum Ginni could suffer some loss of reputation and potentially income. My understanding is that she has been the primary earner in her family for much of the time Clarance has been a Justice. That’s a conflict.

I’m not a lawyer so I can only go with what I’ve read from people I consider respected legal minds. Luttig makes the case that Trump is disqualified, and I think there is a greater than zero chance the SCOTUS agrees. The thread below is short but insightful.

It will be fascinating to follow.

View embedded media

Practically recusing himself would be an implied admission that she was involved in some kind of criminal act. Don’t hold your breath. I think he will be one of the unanimous votes that keep DJT on ballots and allow Americans to decide for themselves who they want as Prez

 

[willdup]

Practically recusing himself would be an implied admission that she was involved in some kind of criminal act. Don’t hold your breath. I think he will be one of the unanimous votes that keep DJT on ballots and allow Americans to decide for themselves who they want as Prez

There is no implied admission, and the question is not if he would recuse himself, which he won’t, but if he should.

Here is what should lead to the recusal of a federal judge. Thomas seems to meet several of these criteria.

"Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge", provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned". The section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinions concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.

 

[SLC_Dawg]

Should the three woman democrats appointed recuse themselves?

 

[willdup]

Should the three woman democrats appointed recuse themselves?

Well, if you want to argue that line of reasoning, which is wrong, then it would be the three justices nominated by Trump who would recuse themselves.

 

[morris123]

in deciding they are convicting(or not) a citizen of a crime of which he was never charged. And then punish him for it. Right to defense? Jury? Appeal? Kangaroo!!

 

[nice marmot]

moot. Colorado is done/cooked/he will be on the ballot. immunity next at SCOTUS

 

[atlanta cock#]

What do they have to do with Clarence Thomas?

It's a two-tiered justice system in our country now. Thomas doesn't have to do a damn thing.

None of us do.

 

[cherrydawg]

There is no implied admission, and the question is not if he would recuse himself, which he won’t, but if he should.

Here is what should lead to the recusal of a federal judge. Thomas seems to meet several of these criteria.

"Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge", provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned". The section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinions concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.

Pardon me if I don’t read past your first statement. Your legal opinions are less sound than,,, ohhhh let’s say the Colorado atty that got embarrassed in the Supreme Court today. Everything you say is bent, twisted, and tortured to make it fit your left wing liberal ideology.

 

[zingerdawg]

Well, if you want to argue that line of reasoning, which is wrong, then it would be the three justices nominated by Trump who would recuse themselves.

How many going after Trump in ga, ny, fl and other places have huge connections to Biden. Every one of them. So should they back off. You wouldn’t answer that question. Jack smith would be compromised as hell. Fani got paid by the White House.

For sure there could be a conflict of interest, but you can have it both ways this time.

You 100 percent would not be complaining if the scotus was 6-3 Democrat. This should be below you.

I know this came from him destroying that Colorado lawyer today. lol.

The lawyer also suggested a way to remove Trump from office after elected. Anything to this? Election stolen? Jesus Christ. The moral compass of the Democrat party by comparison makes Trump look like a saint.

 

[Athens is Heaven]

OP is intelligent. He understands every justice is an appointed legislator. His problem with Clarence is Clarence is the only right wing legislator who respects the Anglo Saxon legal tradition. OP also understands (a) the 14th amendment was written so that confederates convicted of treason (not that there ever was any) couldn’t run for political office after the war and (b) a conviction of treason is a condition precedent for keeping Trump off the ballot.

But OP doesn’t care because he, like all leftist, understands politics is about rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies. Clarence is his enemy thus he wants him punished.

The whole Supreme Court’s going to vote against this bs about keeping Trump off the ballots in this country. So suck it up you libs.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

When libs like Kagan refuse to recuse themselves regarding a matter they openly advocated for and even participated in strategies to defend, I might start worrying about another justice's spouse.

 

[litedawg1968]

What do they have to do with Clarence Thomas?

What does Ginni Thomas have to do w literally anything?

 

[litedawg1968]

But the determinant in that decision is whether Trump participated in an insurrection or not, right? If the answer to that question is yes, then at a minimum Ginni could suffer some loss of reputation and potentially income. My understanding is that she has been the primary earner in her family for much of the time Clarance has been a Justice. That’s a conflict.

I’m not a lawyer so I can only go with what I’ve read from people I consider respected legal minds. Luttig makes the case that Trump is disqualified, and I think there is a greater than zero chance the SCOTUS agrees. The thread below is short but insightful.

It will be fascinating to follow.

View embedded media

What does her being the primary earner have to do w anything? How is that a conflict? I dont understand your point here. Thx.

 

[willdup]

What does her being the primary earner have to do w anything? How is that a conflict? I dont understand your point here. Thx.

Even if she is not criminally indicted, her reputation and earning ability could be negatively impacted if the event that she very seriously supported and lobbied directly to the Chief of Staff to push for is found to be an insurrection. That would impact Clarence directly.

That’s simply one of the several reasons Thomas should have recused himself.

 

[Pecanman]

No!

 

[3 Pete]

Every Black History Month Celebration Should Honor American Hero Clarence Thomas​

https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/0...rence-thomas-as-the-greatest-living-american/

 

[woofn]

Big stretch to think that this Colorado lawsuit could lead to his wife being prosecuted. If he’s conflicted there are likely a lot of other reasons, similar to every other one of those judges.

Honest question: do you think it would be a good thing for the country for Trump to be disqualified legally? If he is such an obvious piece of shit, and the facts are so obvious that he’s a criminal and unfit, no chance he wouldn’t get trounced especially in a national election where everyone votes. Wouldn’t disqualifying him at the end of a clearly one sided political legal effort amount to at best the exact same thing he is being accused of?

Even if you disagree with the premise of most of those questions, the basic question remains: Don’t you think the best thing for the country if you want to “get past” the Trump era is to let the Country decide for themselves?

I suspect that’s what even the liberal judges on the court will conclude.

Thomas losing no sleep…