House Democrats urge Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from Trump Colorado ballot case
House Democrats urge Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from Trump Colorado ballot case
The former president has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling in Colorado that he is ineligible to appear on the state primary ballot because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
The former president has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling in Colorado that he is ineligible to appear on the state primary ballot because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
A group of House Democrats on Thursday called on conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a case involving former President Donald Trump's eligibility to appear on Colorado's Republican primary ballot.
Trump on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado court ruling last month that disqualified him from appearing on the ballot over his conduct leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The former president’s appeal came after the state’s Republican Party filed its own appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision. The state court put its ruling on hold to allow for appeals, meaning Trump could remain on the ballot pending U.S. Supreme Court action.
A group of House Democrats, led by Rep. Hank Johnson, of Georgia, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee’s courts subcommittee, demanded that Thomas recuse himself from the case in a letter dated Thursday.
“I could recuse myself to help settle down the corruption cases building against me…. Naaaa, I’m a fucking Supreme Court justice, I AM the law”
Spoiler:
He won'tif he hadn't resigned, he won't recuse.
we are well beyond anyone in the SC recusing themselves for any reason. these dems are smokin the reefer
I get that they want to be on record pressuring him to recuse himself from the trial but I agree, this seems like a waste of breath.
Urging Clarence Thomas to behave ethically is like urging an oil tycoon to put the lives and health of people over profits.
Neither is ever going to happen unless you force them to.
Permanently Deleted
This was what I immediately thought of. I think his usual "look" is an attempt to try not to laugh maniacally at how much he loves being a partisan hack with impunity.
There is recourse, but that sort of thing only happens to democrats. We just don't have the 'unhinged violent nutjob' supply the bad guys do.
Is his wife facing charges for being a leader of the movement that led to Jan 6th?
No, she attended a rally before the attack, and has continued to endorse their election lies, but her good friend Liz Cheney stopped Congress from looking at her too closely and regular old prosecutors don't have the courage to hold someone as connected as her to account.
"regular old prosecutors" are overwhelmingly right-wingers.
I swear the finger-wagging will work this time! Come on everyone, behave and follow the rules! /s
Seriously though, when will Dems key into the fact that the right doesn't give a fuck about rules or institution? They've been doing obstructionist politics since Obama. They are obviously not interested in playing fair or governing effectively.
So, at what point do Dems become complicit?...
*I am not saying; don't vote blue. Im saying we have to demand more from those who we elect before it is too late.
Its almost too late.
I'd say when they have an actual majority to push meaningful legislation to address this and don't. I can't think of a time since the first 2 years Obama was in office (and prior to that, they were obstructionists but nowhere near the behavior you see now) this was the case.
So I don't think there has been an opportunity to actually address it with a dem majority. Republicans had the house right up from Obama's third year until Trumps 3rd year, and the Senate has been Republican dominated for about the same.
Do you expect Republicans to pass a law that stops Republicans from being obstructionists?
I don't.
There's an intelligence phrase that describes the democratic ruling class: controlled opposition.
"Who put this pubic hair in my Supreme Court?"
How about they stop "urging" the enemy to stop doing something, and instead of being feckless whiners, actually put on their big-boy pants and MAKE THEM!
Often, the only way to make them is to change the law, and that can't be done without the consent of their corrupt allies in the Legislative Branch.
Great sentiment, but how would they do that? House Democrats don't really have any power
Sure they could at least call for an investigation into him, make sure while it is going on he is forced to testify in Congress.
He will if Dems pay him enough.
this
The problem is house democrats arent using speech to tell him. Loads and loads of $peech.
The law: its muh!
"La loi, c'est moi."
That was my first impulse but he def doesn't know French so I thought it would be
incongressincongruentLa loi, c'est 💋, 👨🍳
I'll take Things That Won't Happen for 200, Alex
"No" -Clarence Thomas
Narrator: He didn’t.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A group of House Democrats on Thursday called on conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a case involving former President Donald Trump's eligibility to appear on Colorado's Republican primary ballot.
“This time, we must urge you to recuse yourself from any involvement in the case of Anderson v. Griswold, because your impartiality is reasonably questioned by substantial numbers of fair-minded members of the public, who believe you wife Virginia ('Ginni') Thomas’s substantial involvement in the events leading up to the January 6 insurrection, and the financial incentive it presents for your household if President Trump is re-elected, are disqualifying,” the lawmakers wrote.
“It is unthinkable that you could be impartial in deciding whether an event your wife personally organized qualifies as an ‘insurrection’ that would prevent someone from holding the office of President.”
Democratic Reps. Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania, Glenn Ivey of Maryland, Gerald Connolly of Virginia, Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Dan Goldman of New York also signed the letter.
But Thomas continues to face scrutiny for refusing to recuse himself from several other Jan. 6-related cases, including one involving whether Trump has presidential immunity from federal prosecution.
The Supreme Court last month denied special counsel Jack Smith’s request to step in ahead of the normal appeals process.
The original article contains 533 words, the summary contains 220 words. Saved 59%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Could we start a go fund me so we could pay him to vote in favor of democracy?
just give him a new pillow and he'll just fall asleep through it. if you tell him it costs a thousand dollars, he'll happily accept it.
The only threat he might consider is one of losing his access to YouPorn.
Can I hear an argument from the other side because I clearly don't understand how this argument isnt sound and isn't being screamed by every talking head on TV, news, op ed, etc.
If he doesn’t recuse himself he needs to be impeached for it as well. He’s blatantly and openly in cahoots
How about this: no matter what the decision is, Colorado keeps trump off the ballot anyway, with the rationale being that Thomas is a corrupt bastard in the tank for trump. It’s not like anything matters anymore.
[note: I don’t actually advocate this, for the most obvious reasons]
I feel it too
So 5-3 to keep Trump on instead of 6-3. It's a bold strategy, Cotton.
Shouldn't they be asking the three judges that Trump himself appointed due to the obvious conflicts of interest? I mean, the chances of that happening are also less than zero, but at least there's more solid legal basis for the request in the first place.
His wife going to the Jan 6 rally to support Trump and spreading his election misinfo is an even more obvious conflict of interest.
Saying the Trump appointees should refuse themselves because of that is like saying any case any part of the Biden admin is a part of should have Jackson recuse herself.
His appointees haven't even strongly leaned his way in previous decisions. But then a lot of their really unpopular decisions are probably right from a legal standpoint if not from a policy one and policy is supposed to be the role of Congress. For example the EPA decisions that amount to "when Congress delegates some of their authority to an agency, they only delegate the authority they specify in the legislation and not an inch more."
Wouldn't it be better for Trump to lose the next election while on every state ballot?
No. He already did that. I’m afraid of trump yes, but I’m more afraid of people who see his lack of consequences and get ideas. An attempted coup needs consequences. It’s a crime with no possible motivation beyond greed, ego, and lust for power. And it’s a crime that others will attempt if he doesn’t face consequences, and specifically legal ones. Political consequences are fickle and explaining them away is easy.
In December 15, 2023, we wrote imploring that you recuse yourself from any participation in the case of United States v. Trump, given your wife’s intimate involvement in Mr. Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and to obstruct its certification. This week, we are compelled to write to you again. This time, we must urge you to recuse yourself from any involvement in the case of Anderson v. Griswold, because your impartiality is reasonably questioned by substantial numbers of fair-minded members of the public, who believe you wife Virginia (“Ginni”) Thomas’s substantial involvement in the events leading up to the January 6 insurrection, and the financial incentive it presents for your household if President Trump is re-elected, are disqualifying.
I've been opposed to Thomas being on the court since the Anita Hill testimony and this guy is clearly shady AF given all the gifts he's received. Still, has there been reasonable evidence that this already super conservative shitstain has been influenced by his friends or his wife? In other words, has there been any direct correlation between his associations and his rulings?
I mean, to be fair, I'm a regular working stiff and feel that I'm relatively impartial given my associations. I find that being (as) neutral (as possible) gives me a better understanding of things and frankly a stronger moral backbone. Who's to say a SCJ can't do the same? Kellyanne Conway's husband doesn't seem to have a problem with having an opposing opinion from his wife.
Granted, I'm not employed by The People of The United States nor, for better or worse, have I taken an oath to protect the Constitution of the US. The gravitas of the situation isn't lost on me, I just feel like this is a bit of a waste of time for the Dems and it seems awfully hypocritical when they're deflecting Joe's influence in Hunter's actions and associations.
yes, there are now detailed records coming out from his conservative connections, many of which have tangential ties to his decisions.
youre not going to find a sticky note or email stating the quid pro quo, but there is little doubt this piece of human garbage has no problem taking money and pushing the conservative agenda no matter what.
mob bosses dont order people to be killed. they lament the existence of those people, and it happens.
I think what the other user is asking is, have any of his rooms gone differently than you'd expect from someone with his constitutional philosophy. Saying, "He ruled in favor of a friend," is significantly different than, "He ruled in favor of a friend with a ruling that's very out of the norm for how he typically rules."
Just to respond to the last part of your post alone: If the question about the Bidens was that Joe influenced Hunter then sure, but what the GQP are trying to impeach him for is Hunter influencing Joe. Only one of them is the President, so influence is only a problem in the second scenario, and so far there's no evidence of it.
Well also, if I'm not mistaken, the allegations are regarding a time frame when Biden was either VP or not in office. It just all seems like "theater" that we should be a little more leery of rather than allowing our corporate media overlords, and politicians, to divide us for their power and profit.
You completely misunderstand how recusal works. You don’t recuse yourself because it’s been proven you’ve been taking bribes. You get removed and possibly jailed for that. You recuse yourself from a given trial to avoid the appearance of having a non-neutral position on the case because a reasonable person might believe you may have influenced or associations that could make your ruling look like something other than impartial.
Recusal isn’t stepping down from the bench. It’s just saying that the person in question has a level of involvement in a case that they’re concerned that they may give off the appearance of having a prejudiced opinion.
Thomas is one of the dirtiest judges in the history of the Supreme Court. He has no regard for the history of the institution. He’s driven by power and power alone. He’s not going to step down despite the records of payments received and hidden, and he’s likely not going to recuse himself over the appearance of impropriety because he’s completely unethical.
Judges used to have a higher standard than “I think I can be impartial”. They used to be expected to recuse if there was any potential conflict of interest, whether or not it would actually impact them.
