AOC calls on Justice Thomas to resign

[KeithD]

It's quite simple. Ginni Thomas should go to prison for conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States and Clarence Thomas should then retire. That's what should be.

 

[sinnndy]

What specific financial, legal, personal, or professional “conflict of interest” are in play here? Is it because Thomas holds political views? His wife is active in politics?

He is ruling on cases that she has direct interest in and has played an active role in. He needs to recuse himself on anything that has to do with 1/6. Really simple.

 

[The_Trouvere]

This.

He is incapable of making a non-political ruling

Decisions by the Supreme Court are always political. As long as the Supreme Court makes decisions one agrees with it is easy to imagine that it consists of nine sages of infinite wisdom who spend their days poring over ancient manuscripts in search of The Absolute Truth. Actually, Supreme Court justices have values and concerns like everyone else, and read those concerns into the vague wording of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[KeithD]

There remains conflict of interest. Justice Thomas has ruled in a case where his wife was employed by one of the litigants. More recently he was the only Justice to rule that e-mails didn't need to be turned over to investigators when some of those e-mails were sent by his wife advocating a coup in the United States. Thomas has gone beyond voting utlraconservative just because his wife is a rightist kook and former cult member. He is ruling when there is an obvious conflict of interest in law.

 

[pecksniff]

AOC is like Sanders before her = Manna from heaven for the Party: the GOP.

AOC needs to grow up and stop delivering votes to the Republicans. Her radical agenda is poison for the Democrats. She needs to get back to working on the basic stuff, the economy, health, education, and the relief of poverty - all through existing institutions. Otherwise she will wind up like Sanders - ineffectual for a lifetime.

They represent the political agenda America needs more than anything else. Without them, who will?

 

[Rightguide]

AOC, like many democrats, is too incompetent to hold public office. Democrats, Joe Biden, a menagerie of his communists in the House and Senate, have turned the United States' governing process into a shit-slinging bar fight over who gets to mug and dispossess the American people first.

 

[Rotadom]

AOC, like many democrats, is too incompetent to hold public office. Democrats, Joe Biden, a menagerie of his communists in the House and Senate, have turned the United States' governing process into a shit-slinging bar fight over who gets to mug and dispossess the American people first.

Trump was literally voted out of office for incompetence.

 

[Comshaw]

If Supreme Court justices recuse themselves simply because they (or their spouses) hold political views, then recusals would be expected on all hot button cases. Abortion, guns, speech, etc.

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent OpEd piece this morning that notes an observation stated by Chief Justice Robert’s over a decade ago:

“The general principle for recusal, listed in the U.S. Code, is that a judge should remove himself from any case in which ‘the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’ The Justices follow this principle, but they have an obligation that doesn’t apply to other judges. ‘Lower court judges can freely substitute for one another,‘ wrote Chief Justice Roberts in addressing the recusal issue in his 2011 annual report on the federal judiciary.

‘But the Supreme Court consists of nine Members who always sit together, and if a Justice withdraws from a case, the Court must sit without its full membership,’ the Chief continued. ‘A Justice accordingly cannot withdraw from a case as a matter of convenience or simply to avoid controversy.’

“Specifically, the Chief cited the 1924 Canons of Judicial Ethics that address judicial independence. ‘It provides,’ he wrote, ‘that a judge ‘should not be swayed by partisan demands, public clamor or considerations of personal popularity or notoriety, nor be apprehensive of unjust criticism.’ Such concerns have no role to play in deciding a question of recusal.”
——-

Judge Jackson has pledged to recuse herself from an upcoming case involving Harvard admission standards. That’s entirely appropriate because she sits on the board. If Ginni Thomas were a party to a case before SCOTUS, it would be appropriate for Justice Thomas to recuse himself as well. But the text messages she exchanged with Meadows do not indicate she has any connection to any 1/6 cases coming before the court. She attended the rally and left before any of the vandalism started, and she expressed silly views about the election, but nobody is suggesting she broke into the Capitol or even knows any of the people who were arrested.

Hmmmm. Let's look at a hypothetical, shall we?

The year 2000. The candidates in the presidential race are locked in a desperate and very close election battle. In the middle of all that, messages sent from the husband of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Badder Ginsburg to the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, stating that he thinks the election is about to be stolen, and they should just send their own Electoral College electors to congress to head it off, come to light.

Honestly, in that instance, would you or anyone supporting the Republican party be satisfied that the wife of the one who send the messages, one of the very Justices who would hearing the case if it went to the high court, could be impartial and should be allowed to be part of the judgement of that case?

Hell, I would want her to step down in such a situation.

I don't know about other states or the Federal government, but here we have a thing called "The Appearness of Fairness Doctrine", it not only has to be fair, it also has to appear to be fair. There is no way in hell, even if Justice Thomas insists he can be impartial, that him sitting on a case where his wife is an adamant proponent for one side, appears fair in any way shape or form. He should recuse himself from hearing this case, or any case connected to January 6th. To not do so appear to be bias on his part for the side supported by his wife.

All that said, I get a giggle out of the wingnuts on the extreme right getting spun up over the wingnuts on the extreme left. A predilection for deep-seated, built in, blind adherence to their side without ever looking at the other is a hallmark of both. Two sides of the same fucking coin.

Comshaw

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Hmmmm. Let's look at a hypothetical, shall we?

The year 2000. The candidates in the presidential race are locked in a desperate and very close election battle. In the middle of all that, messages sent from the husband of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Badder Ginsburg to the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, stating that he thinks the election is about to be stolen, and they should just send their own Electoral College electors to congress to head it off, come to light.

Honestly, in that instance, would you or anyone supporting the Republican party be satisfied that the wife of the one who send the messages, one of the very Justices who would hearing the case if it went to the high court, could be impartial and should be allowed to be part of the judgement of that case?

Hell, I would want her to step down in such a situation.

I don't know about other states or the Federal government, but here we have a thing called "The Appearness of Fairness Doctrine", it not only has to be fair, it also has to appear to be fair. There is no way in hell, even if Justice Thomas insists he can be impartial, that him sitting on a case where his wife is an adamant proponent for one side, appears fair in any way shape or form. He should recuse himself from hearing this case, or any case connected to January 6th. To not do so appear to be bias on his part for the side supported by his wife.

All that said, I get a giggle out of the wingnuts on the extreme right getting spun up over the wingnuts on the extreme left. A predilection for deep-seated, built in, blind adherence to their side without ever looking at the other is a hallmark of both. Two sides of the same fucking coin.

Comshaw

You’re basically asking if the shoe were on the other foot, would people like me think differently about recusal. If it were RGB’s spouse instead of Gini Thomas who sent those texts, would we expect RGB to recuse herself.

Speaking for myself, the answer is no. The spouse of a SCOTUS justice is entitled to have political opinions, crazy as they may be.

RGB ruled in cases involving companies her husband held stock in. Even though she had an indirect financial interest, I don’t think her husband’s business affairs affected her judicial integrity. Her husband was involved in abortion rights causes, but nobody, myself included, called for her to recuse herself from abortion cases.

In contrast, Justice Thomas has no financial interest in the outcome of any 1/6 cases that might come before SCOTUS. Ms. Thomas’ texts were not financially motivated. She had no financial interest in the outcome and neither did the justice. And she was not and is not a party to any case that might come before the Supreme Court. If something changes, we can revisit the question.

Clarence Thomas and RGB, while very different in terms of judicial philosophy, are/were, justices who have never given me reason to believe either should recuse themselves from any case they’ve opined on.

 

[ll74]

I think there's enough about his wife for him to recuse himself and politically, it would make sense, because there's enough of a majority to not matter.

But he won't. Eventually someone will leak communications between him and his wife that won't be good and that he'll have to clean up....and I don't think that would happen if he did recuse himself

 

[pecksniff]

Joe Biden, a menagerie of his communists

 

[Comshaw]

You’re basically asking if the shoe were on the other foot, would people like me think differently about recusal. If it were RGB’s spouse instead of Gini Thomas who sent those texts, would we expect RGB to recuse herself.

Speaking for myself, the answer is no. The spouse of a SCOTUS justice is entitled to have political opinions, crazy as they may be.

RGB ruled in cases involving companies her husband held stock in. Even though she had an indirect financial interest, I don’t think her husband’s business affairs affected her judicial integrity. Her husband was involved in abortion rights causes, but nobody, myself included, called for her to recuse herself from abortion cases.

In contrast, Justice Thomas has no financial interest in the outcome of any 1/6 cases that might come before SCOTUS. Ms. Thomas’ texts were not financially motivated. She had no financial interest in the outcome and neither did the justice. And she was not and is not a party to any case that might come before the Supreme Court. If something changes, we can revisit the question.

Clarence Thomas and RGB, while very different in terms of judicial philosophy, are/were, justices who have never given me reason to believe either should recuse themselves from any case they’ve opined on.

Why in the world would you bring up a financial argument, or even mention it, on the subject of someone's influence on a Supreme Court justice and the January 6th insurrection? It has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand. It's a red herring designed to move the debate away from the real subject and onto a track that has nothing to do with what is being discussed. You totally ignored my hypothetical in favor of introducing that red herring.

And I think your last sentence is far from the truth. If only the names were changed in the scenario that has come to light, RBG for CT and MDG for VT, I guarantee you'd be yelling for their blood.

But I will never get you to be honest, so I will withdraw and allow you to be as you are.

Comshaw

 

[jaF0]

Why in the world would you ...

... read his posts, let alone reply to them?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Why in the world would you bring up a financial argument, or even mention it, on the subject of someone's influence on a Supreme Court justice and the January 6th insurrection? It has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand. It's a red herring designed to move the debate away from the real subject and onto a track that has nothing to do with what is being discussed. You totally ignored my hypothetical in favor of introducing that red herring.

And I think your last sentence is far from the truth. If only the names were changed in the scenario that has come to light, RBG for CT and MDG for VT, I guarantee you'd be yelling for their blood.

But I will never get you to be honest, so I will withdraw and allow you to be as you are.

Comshaw

I brought the financial conflict of interest question for two reasons. The topic is under what circumstances should a judge recuse themself.

The question has been raised before. Justice Ginsburg, who you brought up, was scrutinized over her refusal to recuse herself.

More recently, Chief Justice Robert’s weighed in. Citing the 1924 Canons of Judicial Ethics that address judicial independence, Robert’s wrote that “it provides that a judge ‘should not be swayed by partisan demands, public clamor or considerations of personal popularity or notoriety, nor be apprehensive of unjust criticism.’ Such concerns have no role to play in deciding a question of recusal.” The Chief Justice argued that a justice should recuse if he has some financial or significant personal interest in one of the parties to a case. Or if the Justice, a spouse or family member is a party to the litigation.

Gini Thomas is not a party to any case related to 1/6 we know of that might come before the court. She didn’t storm the building, no one has accused her of planning or orchestrating the riot. There is no “debate” about this.

If she becomes a defendant in any such case, or has a clear personal or financial stake in the outcome of some future case, then you can come back with your argument and maybe people will take you seriously. In the meantime, you and AOC can go online and scream all you want.

 

[Comshaw]

I brought the financial conflict of interest question for two reasons. The topic is under what circumstances should a judge recuse themself.

The question has been raised before. Justice Ginsburg, who you brought up, was scrutinized over her refusal to recuse herself.

More recently, Chief Justice Robert’s weighed in. Citing the 1924 Canons of Judicial Ethics that address judicial independence, Robert’s wrote that “it provides that a judge ‘should not be swayed by partisan demands, public clamor or considerations of personal popularity or notoriety, nor be apprehensive of unjust criticism.’ Such concerns have no role to play in deciding a question of recusal.” The Chief Justice argued that a justice should recuse if he has some financial or significant personal interest in one of the parties to a case. Or if the Justice, a spouse or family member is a party to the litigation.

Gini Thomas is not a party to any case related to 1/6 we know of that might come before the court. She didn’t storm the building, no one has accused her of planning or orchestrating the riot. There is no “debate” about this.

If she becomes a defendant in any such case, or has a clear personal or financial stake in the outcome of some future case, then you can come back with your argument and maybe people will take you seriously. In the meantime, you and AOC can go online and scream all you want.

You keep trying to skip past the root of the discussion. NO ONE ever claimed she was part of the insurrection. You also keep trying to push it to "financial stake" in the outcome of a future case on the insurrection. There is none for her, I agree. And I also agree she is not a party to any case about that particular action. BUT IT NEVER WAS NOR ISN'T ABOUT THAT. The subject was her stated stand and opinion on that action and her influence on her husband if it ever came before him. You refuse to address the hypothetical using the opposites that is of the same caliber as is the situation with the Thomas's.

FYI the Canons of Judicial Ethics DO NOT apply to the Supreme Court. Over the years they have refuse to set up ANY ethical rules for themselves. As far as Roberts opinion, "it provides that a judge ‘should not be swayed by partisan demands, public clamor or considerations of personal popularity or notoriety, nor be apprehensive of unjust criticism." What about justified criticism? What of undue influence on a justice? My hypothetical was set up to show that it really isn't about the reality of situation, but that for many like yourself it has to do with politics and whether a justice will rule as you think they should. Personally, I don't believe ANY member of SCOTUS should set on a case where it has been shown that they have been or might have been influenced by an outside force, like their mates.



Comshaw





Taking note of your last sentence, insults are the last bastion of the lost.

 

[ll74]

You keep trying to skip past the root of the discussion. NO ONE ever claimed she was part of the insurrection. You also keep trying to push it to "financial stake" in the outcome of a future case on the insurrection. There is none for her, I agree. And I also agree she is not a party to any case about that particular action. BUT IT NEVER WAS NOR ISN'T ABOUT THAT. The subject was her stated stand and opinion on that action and her influence on her husband if it ever came before him. You refuse to address the hypothetical using the opposites that is of the same caliber as is the situation with the Thomas's.

FYI the Canons of Judicial Ethics DO NOT apply to the Supreme Court. Over the years they have refuse to set up ANY ethical rules for themselves. As far as Roberts opinion, "it provides that a judge ‘should not be swayed by partisan demands, public clamor or considerations of personal popularity or notoriety, nor be apprehensive of unjust criticism." What about justified criticism? What of undue influence on a justice? My hypothetical was set up to show that it really isn't about the reality of situation, but that for many like yourself it has to do with politics and whether a justice will rule as you think they should. Personally, I don't believe ANY member of SCOTUS should set on a case where it has been shown that they have been or might have been influenced by an outside force, like their mates.



Comshaw





Taking note of your last sentence, insults are the last bastion of the lost.

Honestly, the whole scenario should push the court to adopt a code of ethics....but it won't.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

You keep trying to skip past the root of the discussion. NO ONE ever claimed she was part of the insurrection. You also keep trying to push it to "financial stake" in the outcome of a future case on the insurrection. There is none for her, I agree. And I also agree she is not a party to any case about that particular action. BUT IT NEVER WAS NOR ISN'T ABOUT THAT. The subject was her stated stand and opinion on that action and her influence on her husband if it ever came before him. You refuse to address the hypothetical using the opposites that is of the same caliber as is the situation with the Thomas's.

FYI the Canons of Judicial Ethics DO NOT apply to the Supreme Court. Over the years they have refuse to set up ANY ethical rules for themselves. As far as Roberts opinion, "it provides that a judge ‘should not be swayed by partisan demands, public clamor or considerations of personal popularity or notoriety, nor be apprehensive of unjust criticism." What about justified criticism? What of undue influence on a justice? My hypothetical was set up to show that it really isn't about the reality of situation, but that for many like yourself it has to do with politics and whether a justice will rule as you think they should. Personally, I don't believe ANY member of SCOTUS should set on a case where it has been shown that they have been or might have been influenced by an outside force, like their mates.



Comshaw





Taking note of your last sentence, insults are the last bastion of the lost.

You are arguing that the stated political opinion of a justice’s spouse is a reason for recusal. You also seem to be arguing that because because Gini Thomas had crazy ideas about Dominion voting machines and the laws about election certification, that Justice Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving the Capital riot. She had NOTHING to do with the knuckle heads who rioted. That is why you and AOC are not being taken seriously.

 

[ll74]

You are arguing that the stated political opinion of a justice’s spouse is a reason for recusal. You also seem to be arguing that because because Gini Thomas had crazy ideas about Dominion voting machines and the laws about election certification, that Justice Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving the Capital riot. She had NOTHING to do with the knuckle heads who rioted. That is why you and AOC are not being taken seriously.

It is a reason because justices have recused themselves in the past because of it.

I know prescedent seems foreign to the right these days, but anyway...

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Thomas is married to someone who thinks there was election fraud. What type of case (potential defendant(s), potential charges) do you anticipate might come before the court, and please cite an example of precedent that’s applies.

 

[ll74]

Thomas is married to someone who thinks there was election fraud. What type of case (potential defendant(s), potential charges) do you anticipate might come before the court, and please cite an example of precedent that’s applies.

Recusal is not a legal matter.

It's an ethical one.

And that is subjective.

There are plenty of justices who have recused themselves for less

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Recusal is not a legal matter.

It's an ethical one.

And that is subjective.

There are plenty of justices who have recused themselves for less

Non answer. I understand.

 

[ll74]

Non answer. I understand.

You do realize that prescedent is also subjective, right?

You are going towards the legal angle was my entire point..there isn't one here.

 

[ll74]

https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstr....cgi?article=1949&context=faculty_scholarship

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

You do realize that prescedent is also subjective, right?

You are going towards the legal angle was my entire point..there isn't one here.

Got it. You, Comshaw, and AOC have no legal grounds or precedent to support your internet rants. You just want Thomas to recuse himself from some hypothetical case for which you can’t even guess the charges or defendants. Too funny.

 

[pecksniff]

Interesting how the discussion has shifted from resignation to recusal.