(03-31-2022 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 12:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 11:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Enough smoke for it to be not absurd for Thomas to think about recusal?

First, who said he didn't think about it??

Second, frankly, Lad... I see no smoke at all. That was my point. Her legal work for the President as you noted was related to legal challenges to the election results. He is the plaintiff (that may not be the right word, but he is the one seeking relief). The 'privacy' question and the court decision in question was in regards to a lawsuit in the other direction, where Trump is being accused of participating in the 1/6 events and is seeking to protect communication.

You guys are completely conflating a legal challenge to election results... and an accusation of criminal activity. Participation in an insurrection. Unless you're suggesting that Ms Thomas was advising Trump on how to incite a riot and not get caught, in which case... file a criminal charge against her.

Insurrection cases are not the same as challenging the election results in the courts.

Now to 'what your side is being fed'.... here is an article from NPR. One of the more liberal voices out there... look at how they prop this...
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/30/108959593...tion-cases

The headline is 'Legal ethics experts agree: Justice Thomas must recuse in insurrection cases'. So they claim that experts agree that he must recuse. That is where you get your argument. They also call them insurrection cases... which isn't at all the same thing under the law as challenges to how ballots were counted.... unless you're saying that challenging ballot counts in the courts is insurrection.

However, what they don't say in the headline or even in the first few paragraphs where all these guys agree that he should recuse. They're already going from he DID violate ethics... to now a BELIEF that he 'likely' did....

Quote:Each of these experts on judicial ethics previously argued that Ginni Thomas's political life did not create a conflict of interest requiring Justice Thomas to recuse. But this time, they all agree that Ginni Thomas crossed the line, and so very likely did her husband in not recusing himself from cases that came to the court involving election challenges brought by Trump and his allies.

And if that is enough for you to convict, you're done with the article. The next section however says....

Quote:There is, however, no way to force Justice Thomas to do that. The Supreme Court has made clear it considers the judicial code of conduct as guidance that it tries to follow, but is not obligated to do so. It is different from other courts because it is a court of nine. Unlike the lower federal courts, where there are lots of other judges to step in when a judge is recused, nobody can substitute for a recused Supreme Court justice; a tie vote leaves the case unresolved, and unnecessary recusals may undermine the interests of justice.

Moreover, under longstanding practice, each justice decides for him or herself when to recuse.

So much for 'must'.

So the only way to 'connect the dots' is to claim that because of her work as an attorney on the legal challenges to election results, her husband is unable to make a legal decision about privacy rights related to charges of insurrection.... and because he clearly thinks he can walk that 8 foot wide line, the left seems intent on somehow FORCING him through threats and intimidation.

PLEASE help me connect the dots.

The article ends with the idea that its time for the SCOTUS to have a more formal recusal process... which is a THIRD tangent.

In my OWN tangent... here is another case where Thomas was the lone dissent...
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-mem...alty-case/

Quote:What we likely have here, as Justice Thomas cogently points out, is gamesmanship disguised as sincerely held religious beliefs. As a tactic that can be applied in all sorts of cases, it may win victories in court. But in the long run it will undermine the cause of religious freedom in a different tribunal: the court of public opinion.

How is he doing ANYTHING here other than advancing an idea that the left has long championed... and that is that many claims of religious beliefs or exemptions are not genuine. Now, this doesn't have anything to do with undue influence, but it clearly shows that Thomas isn't a simple right wing hack, accepting whatever 'his side' throws up there... and that he sometimes goes against the court to make a simple point.... that while these events may have not crossed the line in the eyes of the entire court, that there IS a point whereby a future case might.

I feel like you've inched even closer to Tanq territory - asking me to speak for others who are not me or asking me to defend arguments I'm not making.

I've not once said Ginni potentially committed a crime and then you're basically asking me to defend an article written by NPR, which I haven't read.

I've literally said I have no problem with Thomas not recusing himself, it's just that I don't think the claims of a potential COI are moot (and I've connected the dots over multiple posts).

Well, I suppose if you wear rose colored glasses, you might wonder why everyone is wearing red.

A) I didn't suggest that you suggested she had committed a crime. I suggested that conflating (as you have done) her work on legal challenges to election results (which is what she did for the white house) with what is essentially a response to a different criminal investigation into Trump's actions surrounding 1/6 would require her involvement and/or knowledge of his criminal activity.... which I believe is a crime. So if you don't believe she did something criminal, then the two issues are not the same... and his 'failure to recuse' on the issue of privacy has absolutely nothing to do with her or her work for the White House. I thought I made it pretty clear.

B) As to the NPR article, I'm pointing out that they're making the same argument... that he MUST recuse, or even that it is worth investigating (which is precisely what you said)... and yet they ultimately reach the conclusion that he isn't doing anything that hasn't ALWAYS been done by the SCOTUS, and why. As is mentioned, with an odd member panel and no alternates, the chances that someone might lose their day in court because of a conflict is a very real possibility.....

But in an 8-1 decision, this obviously doesn't matter either way. Maybe he considered recusing but wanted to make a point about privacy. That's his prerogative as a SCOTUS juror.... and apparently not subject to review anywhere... and made no difference to the outcome. Maybe that was precisely why he stayed in?? YOU said he didn't consider it... and you have made that claim up because without it, you really have no argument... other than that this is always and always has been a possibility... and their prerogative. I'm pretty sure that if you asked the Scotus about it, they'd be pretty offended.

C) and this is the kicker....
First, you act upset that people are asking you to defend other people's opinions... but then you claim that you have done just that. That you're not arguing your own position... you have no issue with it... but that you've connected the dots that other people have made.... and when I walk you through one of those claims (as opposed to the generic argument you claim to have defended) you act like I'm asking you to do something new.

I am about 90% sure that you agreed/accepted/acknowledged the connection between this 8-1 ruling and the COI issue. PLEASE show me how they are connected.... or tell me what post you did so in... because its not there. If you believe its there, then that is YOUR belief... and I am challenging YOUR belief... not anyone else's.

But yeah, way to go once again complaining about one person's posting style while responding to another.