Agree. I don’t really give a rats fart about Ginni. But the Judge Thomas behavior is very important.
1 Like
Agree these are the correct consequences, but I don’t see it happening when voters don’t seem to care about facts. It’s a conundrum.
If she was actually involved with planning the break in or participated in the break in then no, of course not.
But it seems like y’all are assuming that she was involved despite there being no evidence pointing to that.
1 Like
I was responding to Eimon’s question about why the defense that she believed the election was stolen would work for her.
And to be clear, it’s because believing that the election was stolen isn’t actually a crime whereas breaking into the Capitol is.
But you do see why Thomas ought to recuse himself from rulings regarding the investigation, right?
$\textcolor{red}{\text{But Thomas knows that just thinking the election was stolen is not a crime}}$
$\textcolor{red}{\text{Surely if he limits his involvement to that it should be OK}}$
1 Like
Yes and no.
If it turns out that he had knowledge that she had involvement in planning the break in then yes, he has to recuse himself.
But if he knows or at least sincerely believes that she didn’t, and she is not expected to be a material witness then it doesn’t seem like the facts meet the standard for recusal. Which from what I can gather also includes a “duty to sit” if there is no conflict of interest.
But the statute provides for recusal when impartiality “might reasonably be questioned”. If Ginni Thomas is uninvolved then I don’t think that standard would be met. So I think it’s tough for us to say when we don’t know her involvement whether he has a duty to sit or should recuse himself.
I agree it’s a conundrum. I’d say that voters care about facts, they just have “alternative facts”.
I don’t know how to change that.
Naw. Thomas knows that a reasonable person wonders whether Ginni was involved in planning the insurrection. That means that his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, even if he knows she was innocent. And frankly, unless he is abusively controlling, he can’t know for certain that she’s innocent.
He should recuse himself.
That he doesn’t makes me suspect that he is trying to protect his wife. And I think a large fraction of reasonable observers think the same.
There isn’t any way for force him to recuse himself, of course. But we can cast moral judgement on him, even so.
3 Likes
A start would be to bring back something like the ‘fairness doctrine’ that the Reagan people ditched back in 1987. That opened the door for the blatant disinformation campaigns that are endemic to our media today. It took decades to get to this point though so it will probably be a long road back. Not sure if we have the time or the political will to fix it.
1 Like
Yeah, that would be nice, but …
I don’t know if the gov’t can mandate the “fairness” doctrine to anything other than broadcast media.
Even there, I always wondered if it would stand up to a court challenge. The three TV networks felt they were trying to be neutral even without it. So they probably didn’t see any point in making waves.
Now there is so much money in partisan media, I see more likelihood of a challenge. And, the internet …
Yeah it would be a nightmare to try to enforce anything like that these days.
Is it? I’m not sure you could really point me to real problems here except that you don’t like some of the older justices or that they make rulings you don’t agree with.
It’s no secret that the justices have political leanings. It’s my impression (correct if I’m wrong) that the politicization has been widening over time. I’ll admit that RBG was a feminist and liberal-leaning, and as a far-left liberal I’d have been fine with her being removed at a pre-designated time. Let alone people like Thomas with apparently a mentally incompetent spouse (whether from common age-related conditions or something else). It’s near-impossible to be impartial with that situation in your household.
Humans have political leanings. I don’t think that is a problem for the Supreme Court. It’s only a problem for the people that don’t like an individual justices political leanings. Democrats were crying last week while Mrs. Jackson was talking about raising children and the demands of the judiciary, but the same people were heckling Mrs. Barret last year for being too Catholic and thus pro actually giving birth to the babies people create. All of this is political shenanigans. It’s only detestable to everyone when it’s the other side doing it.
Like I said these term limits only come up when someone on the other side is getting long in the tooth.
I’ve always held this position (at least since college or so).
Of course I wanted RBG to cling to life under 45, because of the way things are. Same way as I’d want any ethical actions taken under our political system, elections, etc. to result in what I believe would be a better future. Still can think “there is a better way”. Doesn’t prevent us from implementing something better that wouldn’t take effect for nearly 2 decades.
What about those of us who used to think we weren’t “on a side”? I thought term limits were a good idea back before Trump.
Yes, “Humans have political leanings”. And, the political beliefs of the governed change over time. A consistent plan for replacing judges, even if it is very slow, is better than the haphazard approach we have today.
And, we need to fix the system for picking justices when the Senate and the WH are controlled by different parties.
(“and thus pro actually giving birth to the babies people create.” You could have just said “likely to overturn Roe”. )
Seems like having an automatic approval if a vote is not held within X days of the appointment would have solved the Merrick Garland situation. Not sure of the correct value for X. Perhaps 120? 150?
You’d still have a scenario where a same-party POTUS & Senate could sneak in a candidate in a shorter timeframe but an opposite-party Senate could block in that timeframe. But it puts a time limit on things at least.
I’m opposed to a dark money take over of the Supreme Corut by conservative corporate interests.
Oh wait that already happened in my life time.
1 Like
If the only requirement is a vote, the Senate just keeps voting “no”.
Yes, it means a public vote, which is worth something, but very little.