(04-04-2022 09:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 07:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 06:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 06:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 05:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Getting a bit testy in here.

I would like an answer to the question of what an 8-1 verdict shows. I am sure there have been many of them in the long history of the SCOTUS. A lot of significance is being attached here to this one.

there is no evidence that he did NOT consider whether he should recuse himself. If he had, the vote would have been 8-0. So what? Casting the lone dissent to protect his wife (or to please her) would have been as useful as fighting a rear guard action at the Alamo. BFD.

Only thing notable here is that the Democrats are desperate to reduce the margin from 6-3 t0 5-3 or 5-4. They have 7 months to achieve this. Expect this little foofaraw to die down as we approach election day.

I don’t think anyone here, myself included, think that the 8-1 verdict means anything in regards to the COI issue at hand. Thomas could have changed his vote and there still would have been a potential COI, given Ginni’s roll and communications with the administration.

And yet, it keeps being brought up as if it were evidence.

By who here?

I’ve brought it up as an example of why I believe it’s not unbelievable that a potential COI exists with Thomas (for that case and some potential future cases). But I’m not arguing, nor have I seen anyone here argue, that Thomas’ vote is evidence of anything.

Post 1029 "...some are speculating, rather reasonably, that his lone dissent around the Jan 6 case was to shield these text messages from the light of day, because he knew she had been texting Meadows."

How, "reasonably", could being a 8-1 loser shield her messages?

Just because I find something reasonable, doesn't mean I believe it to be true. The inability of you of Ham to understand that is just astounding.

That clearly isn't an example of me advocating that Thomas' dissenting vote was evidence that he was trying to hide Ginni's texts. I don't think that position is unreasonable, but I also don't agree with that position - I think it's MORE reasonable that Thomas voted that way for other reasons.