it isn’t.
that said, if the worst to be said of the left’s crazies is promoting this, while the right has MTG, boebert, and the orgy/cocaine witness cawthorn, then one of the fringes is closer to reality.
I don’t think this is impeachable. I think his fellow justices are saying “you’re making us look bad”. Maybe there is more talk about a formal code of ethics, and the others are blaming Thomas.
That’s about all the accountability I see for him.
1 Like
When the Supreme Court can’t tell tha difference between right and wrong…well don’t look shocked when they lose their authority in the eyes of the general public.
This does not end well.
1 Like
Yeah, I’m not sure we want to go down the rabbit hole of impeaching justices (or anyone) for their spouse’s behavior.
Whether or not he should have recused himself from any cases the court has heard since is a different question. I’m not following closely what cases the SCOTUS has already heard that might be related.
Has someone compiled a list of cases that they think Thomas should have recused himself from, but did not? I’d be interested in seeing such a list, if it exists.
Given that Ginni herself doesn’t seem to endorse the events of Jan 6, I am (so far) not convinced that her husband should recuse himself from Jan 6 cases… but I am open to being convinced that he should as it’s very possible that I’m missing a relevant connection.
1 Like
Oh, along the same lines… what do we know about Justice Thomas’s knowledge of his wife’s texts?
I mean, it certainly seems likely that he found out at the point where the texts suddenly stop and asked her to kindly STFU. But do we have any proof of that? Or can he claim that he found out when the rest of the world did?
Because if it can’t be proved that he was even aware that the texts existed then the case for impeachment is even weaker.
Depending how much of what Ginni texts were known to her husband and when and to what extent he may have been involved with her it could be impeachable.
That said it’s probably not impeachable.
Given his wife’s potential entanglements with J6, he should absolutely be required to recuse himself from any case remotely related to J6.
He won’t and Republicans will hand wave.
1 Like
What are these potential entanglements?
If she was advocating overturning the election result, and Jan 6 was about overturning the election result, that’s a fairly strong degree of entanglement, especially given Meadows’s proximity to Jan 6. Almost certainly not enough, in the absence of other evidence (of which I am unaware) to get her convicted of anything on Jan 6, but enough to suggest recusal, especially considering the “appearance of impropriety”.
2 Likes
Twig, I brought up the specific ruling earlier. See the reference.
I mean THE ONLY DISSENT and Thomas has a personal interest in quashing the subpoena. It certainly crosses the line “the appearance of”.
5 Likes
Thanks. Here’s an article about the ruling if anyone else cares to refresh their memory.
I’m pretty sure there’s not grounds to impeach Thomas. Not unless HE is found to be complicit in the Jan 6 insurrection.
I think there’s more than enough evidence that he should have recused himself from that case (and likely others) but I don’t think our laws include any way to enforce that.
I hope the rest of the court pressures him to recuse himself when they consider other cases that will influence whether investigators might find evidence that Ginni was criminally liable (not saying she is, but she’s in a position where she ought to be included in the investigation) but I doubt he will do so. I think he’ll vote to protect his wife.
2 Likes
Are there actual “grounds” here. For the president it seems like the only “grounds” is “did enough members of the House vote for it”.
Of course, they’d need to convince their constituents that it was the right thing to do in order to keep their own jobs, but the impeachment would be a done deal.
I thought the ground were “high crimes and misdemeanors” for both, although I haven’t actually checked re judges. I mean, congress can interpret that however they want, but as a liberal who would love Thomas to leave the court, I don’t see any evidence of him committing any crimes.
(I suspect his wife DID commit crimes, and I think it’s not that unlikely that there will be evidence supporting her guilt, too. But that’s her, not him.)
Are those terms defined anywhere?
Note: I don’t think he should be impeached either.
What crimes? It seems like she truly believed that Trump won the election and was being unfairly denied electoral votes.
While that’s idiotic, I don’t think it’s a crime. “Release the Kraken” seems like insufficient grounds for claiming a crime was committed, but I admit to not really understanding that reference so maybe it’s worse than I’m appreciating.
Truly believing something is the right thing to do does not necessarily relieve you of guilt in a crime.
I believe that it helps, given the ways these some of these laws are written. So it is not unimportant. But not necessarily decisive either.
1 Like
Agree, but I repeat, what crimes?
1 Like
How about this one:
“by force” appears four times in those six lines.
I think everything that is mentioned is subject to the “by force” qualifier. When people in politics say “we have to fight this”, they don’t normally mean actions that are included in “by force” in that law.
1 Like