AOC calls on Justice Thomas to resign

[pecksniff]

Story.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should resign after it emerged that his wife had pressed the Trump White House in text messages to try to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

“If not, his failure to disclose income from right-wing organizations, recuse himself from matters involving his wife, and his vote to block the Jan 6th commission from key information must be investigated and could serve as grounds for impeachment,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.




Ocasio-Cortez’s call for Thomas to resign — as well as her raising the prospect an impeachment effort — goes further than most other Democrats have in their demands for Thomas to recuse himself from cases involving the 2020 election or the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection after certain texts from his wife came to light last week. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) also has said Thomas should be impeached.

The texts by Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, a conservative activist and lawyer by training, revealed that she had reached out to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows multiple times in the weeks after the 2020 election, pushing the baseless claim that the election had been stolen and urging Trump officials not to accept the results. At the time, President Donald Trump and his allies had vowed to take their efforts to overturn the election results to the Supreme Court.

In January, Clarence Thomas was the only justice to dissent in the Supreme Court’s decision to reject Trump’s request to block White House documents from being released to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection. The bipartisan panel is investigating the 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob that tried to stop the confirmation of Joe Biden’s electoral college win, an attack that led to five deaths and left about 140 members of law enforcement injured.

 

[ll74]

Grandstanding

 

[pecksniff]

Grandstanding

I guess so. Somebody needs to tell AOC that in 2024, she'll still be too young to be presidential material.

 

[icanhelp1]

Story.

Her stupidity is grounds for impeachment.

 

[Fermina_Daza]

I may be reviled for this but…..

Can we just have AOC step down and Lindsey Graham step down and call it even? Like a game of red rover.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

There may be some grandstanding there but she does make a valid point on his Jan 6 ruling.

 

[colddiesel]

She was foolish to say this, and it can only pull votes away from moderate D candidates.

She is hot though; so FD. a Lindsay Graham trade off is not equal.

.

 

[pecksniff]

There may be some grandstanding there but she does make a valid point on his Jan 6 ruling.

That does warrant an impeachment inquiry at the very least.

 

[icanhelp1]

I may be reviled for this but…..

Can we just have AOC step down and Lindsey Graham step down and call it even? Like a game of red rover.

I'll trade you one Lindsey Graham for AOC..Tlaib..Omar and Pressley

 

[Fermina_Daza]

I'll trade you one Lindsey Graham for AOC..Tlaib..Omar and Pressley

Math was never my strong point; however, this is blatantly not adding up.

Keep Lindsey Graham. He’s amusing to watch flip flop around.

 

[YDB95]

For all the grandstanding here, I see nothing that defeats her argument.

 

[icanhelp1]

Math was never my strong point; however, this is blatantly not adding up.

Keep Lindsey Graham. He’s amusing to watch flip flop around.

Why not? There are basically 4 house reps for each senator.

At least Lindsey doesn't run around belching " defund the Police "

 

[pecksniff]

She was foolish to say this, and it can only pull votes away from moderate D candidates.

She is hot though; so FD. a Lindsay Graham trade off is not equal.

For his age, Lindsay is fabulous!

 

[BluesDriver66]

"Grandstanding" is a fact free opinion based on "do nothing Democrats" insisting on "business as usual" because doing anything bold, different, or responsible might get something accomplished. Let's not do anything to hold Republicans legally responsible for their unethical behavior. Let's just wait for them to do their damage then whine about it in a strongly worded letter afterwards and knit some pink pussy hats.

You fuckers whine and complain about Republicans all day, every day but as soon as anybody stands up with ideas to correct the problems you're the first ones to poo poo it. Keep doing what you've been doing and keep getting what you've getting....which is a whole lot of nothing.


In January of 2008, Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia attended a political retreat run by the Koch brothers. Their subsequent ruling in the Citizens United campaign finance case reportedly benefited the Koch brothers' political activities.

Thomas' wife, Virginia Thomas, founded a Tea Party-affiliated group called Liberty Central.....she would accept donations from various sources -- including corporations -- as allowed under campaign finance rules loosened by the Supreme Court.

Virginia Thomas earned over $680,000 from conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation over five years, but the justice did not include it on financial disclosure forms, consistently checking no spousal income.

Harlan Crowe, a close friend of Thomas who once gave his wife $500,000 for Liberty Central, is now financing a multimillion-dollar restoration of an old Georgia cannery where Thomas' mother once worked, at the Thomas' behest.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/clarence-thomas-ethics-violations/351905/

 

[Dribble]

There may be some grandstanding there but she does make a valid point on his Jan 6 ruling.

This.

He is incapable of making a non-political ruling

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

There may be some grandstanding there but she does make a valid point on his Jan 6 ruling.

No she doesn’t.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

This.

He is incapable of making a non-political ruling

I’m sure you felt the same way about RGB’s involvement with the ACLU on politically charged issues like abortion. Not her husband’s involvement. Her involvement. No question you’d demand her recusal from the Dobbs case if she were still alive and on the bench, right?

 

[icanhelp1]

For all the grandstanding here, I see nothing that defeats her argument.

Mrs. Thomas is not judge Thomas, you must be blind, or like Jackson, you don’t know what a woman is.

 

[PaxNurgle]

There may be some grandstanding there but she does make a valid point on his Jan 6 ruling.

I agree with this, and I would like to see more evidence before such a drastic move is taken to remove him from the bench

However I have long argued that he is not qualified to sit on the court for other reasons, simply because he is far too partisan and activist, and has little regard for the Bill of Rights as it was intended.

It is obvious though, that as a Supreme Court Justice, in order for the court to remain fair and impartial, Thomas should recuse himself from any and all cases related to Donald Trump and the Jan 6th insurrection.

 

[icanhelp1]

I agree with this, and I would like to see more evidence before such a drastic move is taken to remove him from the bench

However I have long argued that he is not qualified to sit on the court for other reasons, simply because he is far too partisan and activist, and has little regard for the Bill of Rights as it was intended.

It is obvious though, that as a Supreme Court Justice, in order for the court to remain fair and impartial, Thomas should recuse himself from any and all cases related to Donald Trump and the Jan 6th insurrection.

Far too partisan as opposed to RBG?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I agree with this, and I would like to see more evidence before such a drastic move is taken to remove him from the bench

However I have long argued that he is not qualified to sit on the court for other reasons, simply because he is far too partisan and activist, and has little regard for the Bill of Rights as it was intended.

It is obvious though, that as a Supreme Court Justice, in order for the court to remain fair and impartial, Thomas should recuse himself from any and all cases related to Donald Trump and the Jan 6th insurrection.

Hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but Justice Thomas has already been confirmed. It happened about 30 years ago. Justices are not required to recuse themselves from cases because they hold political views. All justices have political views. Their spouses do too. Sorry.

 

[YDB95]

Mrs. Thomas is not judge Thomas, you must be blind, or like Jackson, you don’t know what a woman is.

At the very least, he ought to recuse himself from any case in which she has any involvement. He never has.

 

[pecksniff]

Far too partisan as opposed to RBG?

Absolutely as opposed to RBG.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but Justice Thomas has already been confirmed. It happened about 30 years ago. Justices are not required to recuse themselves from cases because they hold political views. All justices have political views. Their spouses do too. Sorry.

If they hold a conflict of interest then it is an issue of ethics and yes, they are required to excuse themselves. Or if their views contradict proven and verified facts. His wife believes Trump is the rightful winner of the 2020 presidential election. This has been repeatedly proven to be false, multiple times, after close scrutiny. Because of her inability to accept facts, his views may be tainted and therefore he should excuse himself.

If, for example, a camera caught an armed robber in the act and the juror (friends with the defendent who wanted to see him freed) refused to accept the video evidence, that juror would be excused from the jury. EXACTLY what should happen with Clarence Thomas.

And no, RBG was not partisan, not nearly to the extent that Thomas is.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

If they hold a conflict of interest then it is an issue of ethics and yes, they are required to excuse themselves. Or if their views contradict proven and verified facts. His wife believes Trump is the rightful winner of the 2020 presidential election. This has been repeatedly proven to be false, multiple times, after close scrutiny. Because of her inability to accept facts, his views may be tainted and therefore he should excuse himself.

If, for example, a camera caught an armed robber in the act and the juror (friends with the defendent who wanted to see him freed) refused to accept the video evidence, that juror would be excused from the jury. EXACTLY what should happen with Clarence Thomas.

And no, RBG was not partisan, not nearly to the extent that Thomas is.

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?