Yes, that seems likely.
I’m ok with anyones right to be a nut job. But when you have a direct line to the POTUS chief of staff, you’re no longer just anyone.
And as I recall, Justice Thomas was the sole dissent on the ruling wrt subpoena of the Jan6 commissions Access to records. Wonder if he knew there was information that would cast Ginnie in a less than favorable light?
If it walks like a duck…
Can a SCOTUS be impeached for senility? I don’t know.
Certainly there should be a procedure to deal with that possibility for anyone, not just JOTSCOTUS’s. And while term limits lowers the likelihood of needing to use it on a JOTSCOTUS, 18 years is really the only possible duration of term limits that makes any sense at all and someone could easily go senile faster than that.
Why not an initial term of 12 years, with possible reappointment for another 6 or even two additional 6’s? It is at least possible there should be a different between term and term limit.
Good point. I had forgotten about that one.
Seems like if you want this to actually happen you’re going to need to have every POTUS term have the same number come up, so I think that means 9, 18, or 36. 9 years seems too short and 36 seems too long. Although maybe a 9 year term that could be renewed once would work.
If someone dies or resigns or is removed from office before their term is up then POTUS appoints someone to fill out the remainder of the term only.
Yeah, you could design something alternative, but I don’t think you’ll get any traction.
Yes. This is a tangent, but I can’t help myself …
And, when there is an unscheduled vacancy, the rest of the term if filled by someone who is not eligible for a full term. I’m sure there are plenty of experienced judges in the federal system who are past the window for an 18-year term who would do fine jobs filling in for six years or whatever.
And, we need a system for appointing justices when the Prez and Senate can’t agree. Compromise within a time limit or you both lose your say.
She’s 65 now. 63 when the texts were sent.
I am not aware of her ever dialing that back & admitting she was egregiously wrong, but it’s possible I missed it. A few minutes’ Google search didn’t turn anything up, but I may not have had the right search terms. 
Sure, we all have our gaffes when we say something we didn’t actually mean. For example, in the same hearing, Justice Breyer said that “750 million people” had tested positive for covid the previous day, but that was clearly just a dumb misspeak, as at other points he gave the correct figure (750 thousand).
Sotomayor’s huge error was in line with, and about equally correct as, other “facts” she presented in that hearing, suggesting she had bought into the alarmist propaganda about covid & kids, hook, line, & sinker. (To some extent Kagan & Breyer, too, but not to the same degree as Sotomayor.)
(I agree with the headline of this opinion piece more than the content)
I don’t really see a huge difference between her error in believing completely untrue “facts” about covid & kids and Ginnie (Gini? Ginny?) Thomas believing completely untrue “facts” about election fraud, unless you buy Mr Gorilla’s assertion that Mrs Thomas was actually responsible for the “Big Lie” propaganda instead of just falling prey to it.
On the other hand, Sotomayor read her blatant covid misinformation directly into the SCOTUS record (without any later correction, afaik) and has allowed her misinformed bias to directly affect case(s) before her.
Another difference is that medical information on covid is quite outside Sotomayor’s specialty. This is different from a politically savvy lawyer’s beliefs about the presidential election, which is much more aligned with their expertise.
You know that I think there is a lot of misinformation on masks, vaccines, etc. I tend to be less troubled about politicians believing this, unless they are physicians themselves, or i feel like they must have had experts clearly explain the truth to them. I still think it leads to terrible policy, but i somewhat better understand someone who has a law degree thinking, say, that RNA vaccines change your DNA.
Thinking there is a nationwide conspiracy to undermine the vote, when you probably have a pretty good idea how that process works, is much less forgivable.
I also agree that it is a failure in process if her decision was based on that false statistic. But one mistakenly quoted fact that she never corrected (and im not sure how she would even do that) is very poor evidence that this misinformation affected her rulings, and i would be shocked if that were true. There is extensive discussion behind close doors between the justices before a ruling. There is research done by clerks. Etc.
I think it’s Ginni
I mostly agree with your post, but this:
Seems to contradict this:
I mean, did she do no research prior to making the statement?
Nonetheless, I hope you are right and one of the other justices corrected her behind closed doors.
Hopefully some research.
Clearly she got something wrong. But it’s not clear to me how important that was to whatever she was trying to accomplish in oral arguments.
I assume she was corrected as she decided on her opinion, especially if it would have been decisive.
Sotomayor is old, fat, Hispanic, and has diabetes. She’s at very high personal risk for covid, so it’s not surprising that she’s alarmed by it. I certainly hope that the justices had accurate facts at their disposal while they argued the case. My guess is that even with accurate facts, she finds covid alarming, however, because rationally, she SHOULD find it alarming. One hopes that her personal alarm doesn’t overly influence her rulings.
She had grossly inaccurate “facts” during oral arguments.
Well, I guess that settles that. Justice Thomas was justified in not recusing himself.
Next case!
Which might or might not have carried over to the final arguments.
Is the squad (or at least one member) seriously suggesting Thomas be impeached?
Is that really surprising?
1 Like
Are you arguing that he should face no accountability for his apparently unethical actions?
Impeachment may be too far, but what else is there when something is as blatant as this?