Ginni Thomas and the Integrity of the Supreme Court (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    MT15

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages
    19,457
    Reaction score
    26,663
    Location
    Midwest
    Offline
    I think the ongoing revelations about Ginni Thomas’ deep involvement in right wing efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election deserves its own thread.

    The texts to Meadows were sorta crazy and all, but her communication with AZ state legislators pressuring them to certify an alternate slate of electors upped the ante.

    Now we find out she was involved with Eastman as well. Leading to the following pretty reasonable speculation:

     
    Quote from article above raises the question, how did Eastman know the tenor of internal SC deliberations?

    “A lawyer advising President Donald J. Trump claimed in an email after Election Day 2020 to have insight into a “heated fight” among the Supreme Court justices over whether to hear arguments about the president’s efforts to overturn his defeat at the polls, two people briefed on the email said.

    The lawyer, John Eastman, made the statement in a Dec. 24, 2020, exchange with a pro-Trump lawyer and Trump campaign officials over whether to file legal papers that they hoped might prompt four justices to agree to hear an election case from Wisconsin.

    “So the odds are not based on the legal merits but an assessment of the justices’ spines, and I understand that there is a heated fight underway,” Mr. Eastman wrote, according to the people briefed on the contents of the email. Referring to the process by which at least four justices are needed to take up a case, he added, “For those willing to do their duty, we should help them by giving them a Wisconsin cert petition to add into the mix.””
     
    I said this in another topic, but their integrity went out the window after kav, handmaid, and obstructionist's replacement flat out lied to people on their opinion/belief of Roe vs Wade. I'll go further: if any of them had ethics, at least 2 should have declined the nominations due to the nature of what transpired before they were nominated (republicans being obstructionists -saying too close to an election blah blah- and then being hypocrites after RBG's death)

    I'll toss Clarence Thomas into that, because he was (smartly) vague when asked about Roe back in 1991
     
    I actually heard today on the radio that she said she “can’t wait” to talk with them and set the record straight. 🤷‍♀️
    Clarence Thomas upon hearing this...

    brule-what.gif
     
    The thread’s title is a little murky. I think we need a clearer definition of integrity as it applies to the SCOTUS as currently composed.

    As for Ginnie Thomas testifying? Oh, please, please, please. I hope Clarence is pizzing in his pants.
     
    Clarence doesn't care. He knows there is absolutely nothing his crazy wife can say that will get any Republican Senator to remove him from office.
    Well, yeah, there is that. It would still be cool to watch him squirm.
     
    Well, yeah, there is that. It would still be cool to watch him squirm.
    Even that would be nice but the man is a total reprobate with little to no sense of civility for the office he possesses. Easily the most shallow intellect on the Court with that quality only being matched in deficiency by his pettiness.
     
    Clarence doesn't care. He knows there is absolutely nothing his crazy wife can say that will get any Republican Senator to remove him from office.
    Agreed. Thomas will not be removed unless Trump decides he wants him removed. However, he should be impeached and made to live with the stain of being on one of two supreme court justices to ever have been impeached. His continued existence on the supreme court is a stain on democracy.
     
    Even that would be nice but the man is a total reprobate with little to no sense of civility for the office he possesses. Easily the most shallow intellect on the Court with that quality only being matched in deficiency by his pettiness.
    If you looked up “hack” in the dictionary you would find a picture of Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Roberts is just mediocre as is Gorsuch.
     
    Regarding the entire concept of integrity…

    It is arbitrarily dependent upon a psychological and emotional response: belief in its integrity and confidence in its integrity. What that integrity actually means is completely undefinable outside of the psychological and emotional point of view. When the court rules in a manner inconsistent with a viewers belief structures integrity is compromised. It may be minimal or it may be considerably more than that.

    But we must also note that the SCOTUS has for 2 centuries functioned in a manner which was never stated and utilized power which it was never given. It simply claimed the power of review to determine the constitutionality of law. This must bring into play two conflicting ideas. The first is that the court is or should at least appear to be apolitical. This is impossible. The second is the concept of unconstitutionality itself. The document itself without the first 10 amendments forbids only three things under the category of legislation. The prohibitions are against bills of attainder, ex post facto laws and the passage of religious tests. The amendments do clutter things up more. Still, after all, rulings on constitutionality are political by their nature and bring the political and social belief structures of the justices into play. To think otherwise is foolish and simplistic. Thus the conflict and thus the constant tension regarding integrity.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom