(03-30-2022 05:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 05:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 04:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 03:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 02:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You seemingly are a proponent *for* looking at it. Which doesnt seem to jive with your now statement that it is 'A-OK'.

I don't even know what "looking at it" means. Can you explain that a bit more?

It seems like you're having a hard time understanding that one can see both sides of an argument and not immediately fall into one camp.

I think any calls for Thomas to be impeached are over the top and wrong given the information at hand. I think a potential conflict of interest exists for future Jan 6 or 2020 election cases that involve the administration. But if Thomas doesn't think that's the case and he can remain impartial, no issue with me based on the info that is currently out in public.

Sorry I don't fall into the foaming at the mouth category you seemingly want me to.

And I think that Justices can do pretty fing good job of recusing themselves or not. Especially with a track record of doing so 40+ times.

So I dont buy into the 'lets look at it' --- on the surface it doesnt seem to meet the issue, and to compound that CT did not, and to compound that CT has a record of recusing in appropriate instances.

So I dont buy into the 'smoke' **** that gets put out on a fing incessant basis.

And how is any of that relevant to me and what I’ve said? Seems like you’re using me for a stand in for others.

Glad to know you are in the 'this is bull**** hokum' camp. But strangely enough you argue about how proper it is to look further.

I don’t think I’m really in any camp - the potential conflict of interest seems like a very reasonable. I see the reasons why recusal could be appropriate, but also why it isn’t necessary. Absolutely no reason to impeach.

Again, you seem to be using me as a stand in for others, as opposed to responding to what I type.