The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas

As you wish.

 

Excellent points here.
Dems Want Ginni Thomas to Stay Home & Bake?

Dean Karayanis, Washington Times

There used to be a rule in Washington that families are off-limits, but our media referees only throw flags on one team. So as Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, finds herself at the heart of a manufactured firestorm over leaked text messages, it’s worth asking why the party that demands civility feels free to savage her for having strong opinions.

Are Supreme Court spouses supposed to shut up and stay in the kitchen?

Mrs. Thomas’ sin, as her opponents see it, is that she urged former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to question the 2020 election results at a time lawyers were claiming irregularities in several states. Her private texts are sleazily summarized as urging him to “overturn the election,” when that phrase appears nowhere in the communications.

Mrs. Thomas is a private citizen. Her objections to the certification of President Biden’s election were no more subversive than supporters of Democrats Andrew Jackson in 1824, Samuel J. Tilden in 1876, Grover Cleveland in 1888, Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, or Hillary Clinton in 2016. They all urged those candidates to fight to win in court what they’d lost at the ballot box. . . .

 

I've quoted several legal experts, and you've brought zero to the battle.

First Rule of Holes, when you're in one, stop digging.

 

Clarence.

Washington Times is a joke..

 

Evidence has been presented. You have ignored it.

 

Sadly, this sort of smear has become the left's go-to move.

Politico
Opinion | Clarence Thomas Should Be Used to the Smears by Now

 

LOL - In an insane LW clown world, perhaps....

 

Years before she became one of then-President Donald Trump’s most prominent coup supporters, Ginni Thomas was already notorious in his West Wing for, among other things, ruining staffers’ afternoons by working Trump into fits of vengeful rage.

“We all knew that within minutes after Ginni left her meeting with the president, he would start yelling about firing people for being disloyal,” said a former senior Trump administration official. “When Ginni Thomas showed up, you knew your day was wrecked.”

In Jack's world, we are to believe Clarence was completely unaware of his wife's (someone he once said was like his second leg as he walked through life) activities. Like having repeated private meetings with Don during which she would wind him up like a top over supposedly disloyal members of his admin. "So honey, what did you do today?" Ginni responds, "Oh, nothing much," after having gone to the WH to convince the former Insurrectionist-in-Chief to purge the traitors to the cause.

 

Love it, who do you think your lame distraction is going to fool?

First Rule of Holes...

 

The law requires that he know, and there is really no doubt that he did know. Ignorance is no excuse, triply so for a judge...

The legal system depends heavily on trust, this blatantly undermines that trust, and in so doing, undermines Rule of Law...

 

https://www.msnbc.com/all

Once there, click on "From cult to Court: How Ginni Thomas found her influence"

The concern I have isn't that Ginni used to belong to a cult. Though it does explain her joining Trump's. My concern is how Clarence has put his loyalty to his wife over his loyalty his fellow justices, to all Americans, and the Constitution. Now that we know what we know, it seems implausible he will recuse himself from future cases involving Don (and by extension Ginni). Since doing so would be a tacit admission he should have done so previously. The problem being, as I have said repeatedly, the lack of enforcement mechanism that would require a SCJ to recuse in instances like this when it is so clearly called for. Because the standard for other federal judges is to recuse even if the appearance of a conflict is apparent.

 

Thomas did nothing wrong. His wife is a free woman (I think, but I'm not a biologist) entitled to her own views and she has a right to share them. We all realized that the hard Left has a real problem with not loudly cheering for their received narrative and saying anything else to anyone else, but, that's your problem.

As for why Thomas loves his Trump supporter wife? Well, women that support Trump are just awesome and we all love them.

​

 

Wrong on the facts and the law.

 

Sorry, but I'm not the one digging a hole.

 

True, it was made for you, and silly wabbit, you jumped right in..

 

Still can't back up any of that, can you?

 

Already posted more than once. Read and learn.
Politico
Opinion | Clarence Thomas Should Be Used to the Smears by Now

Opinion | Clarence Thomas and his wife's texts: A kerfuffle over appearances

 

No, that's not what I was saying at all. You CLEARLY said that Republicans will always place their political interests before there country's interest. I merely replied that Democrats do the same thing. So it is most certainly topical. To be clear, I don't dispute what you said about Republicans. My point is that that sort of behavior is not confined to the Republican side of the aisle.

 

Saying it is not enough. I presented a clear example, and you didn't.

 

That's a reprint from the National Review. Your lawyer simply dodges the conflict of interest by pretending it doesn't exist. He also isn't an expert, everyone of the guys I used was.

George F Will also ignored the conflict of interest. Even in the most favorable of interpretations, the law REQUIRES avoiding even the appearance of said conflict. This isn't the first time Clarence has ignored that law...

Funny story about Will, he quickly learned what side of his bread got buttered. About 30 years ago, he was embedded with the NY police when part of the city was a war zone thanks to the drug war. He started writing about effective social programs the cops wanted. It was his brief flirtation with common sense. But a guy still has to make a living, so he went back to mostly shoveling crap.

 

There is no conflict of interest. That's the point. And your story about Will is fiction.

 

The ONLY CASE for impeaching Thomas is the epidemic case of slobber-slinging idiocy rampant amongst the loony left.

 

How we express ourselves often reveals more about us than we intend.

 

So what does your ceaseless BS say about you?

Btw, since you can't figure something that simple out, we don't count.

Mouse sans delusions...

 

You mean like always quoting suspect sources that agree with your preconceived ideas and theories?