Justice Thomas's concern about politicizing the SC.

In recent statements Thomas derided the leak of the Roe decision as a politicization of the court - a horrible situation he claims.

But, his WIFE used her influence with two different legislatures to attempt to cause Arizona to select other electors that would reverse the presidential election.

In the past, Justice Thomas has refused to recuse himself when issues affecting his wife's business have come before the court.

The very idea that Justice Thomas would blame OTHERS for politicizing the court is just plain startling.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2022/05/20/ginni-thomas-arizona-election-emails/

 

Supreme Court justices are in effect politicians. Just like Generals and Admirals, who need congressional approval to rise to those ranks.

 

These recent actions are a massive move away from what has been a serious and bipartisan move to choose justices who are committed to the constitution.

Obviously, there have always been those who interpret the constitution in more conservative or more liberal direction.

But, what we're seeing today is WAY beyond that.

>> Now we have the wife of a Justice working HARD and long to subvert the presidential election. How could Justice Thomas totally unaware of these multiple efforts by his wife to subvert the will of voters?

 

I have to give Republicans one thing, they excel at making the people of this nation not trust Governmental entities. The decline of faith in SCOTUS is impressive even for them though.

 

Yes, they undermine absolutely everything there is about America.

Democracy
Medicine
All branches of science
Taxes
Energy
Race relations

There is no end.

 

The Democrats use the American court system to get what they want, be it abortion, excessive 'rights' for criminals, or the never-ending invasion of our country by illegals. Anything that stands in the way of that is the enemy that must be defeated at any cost; case in point mythical rape allegations that magically appear out of nowhere every time a Republican President nominates a prospective justice.

 

I agree the politics are more polarized, but always remember they are cyclical, and in a few years, it can change 180. Remember 4 yrs, Trump supporters didn't think they could lose.

 

You're comparing apples with rockets.

 

Decipher his meaning! He's saying he wants to stop scrutiny of his wife, he wants to hide, he wants to protect his and her politics.

 

You're trying to hide the truth.

 

I don't try to hide anything. I'm just pointing out that posts that draw a comparative connection between two totally unrelated things, like apples and rockets, is illogical, inane, and moronic.

 

Justice Thomas's concern about politicizing the SC.

I'm trying to think of time that the SC was not politicized. I'm not coming up with anything.

 

God knows how many of his decisions have been corrupted by living with a seditious extremist.
If he had any character, he would immediately resign.

 

Rules for thee but not for me.

 

Was his wife's business a part of the case? Yes or no? If not, then there is no need to recuse himself as THAT is the standard. And has always been the standard. Not whether a decision might possibly affect somewhere along the road his wife's business. If one wanted to be pedantic one could say that every single decision a SCOTUS judge makes affects their significant other's interests since their decisions affect the entire country. Since that is the case then why don't ALL the Justices recuse themselves? OH right...because the standard of recusal is about direct involvements. Not possibly indirect involvements.

 

They thought they had enough power to overcome democracy.

They were VERY close to being right, and have worked hard to increase their ability to do so.

Without democracy, the possibility of policy changes becomes FAR less likely and the methods of causing those policy changes become FAR more scary.

 

Her business was directly affected by the outcome of the case.

Normally, that would cause a justice to recuse himself.

 

Yeah, if they respected their position and the bench.

 

Was her business involved in the case? Yes or no?

 

Those are highly comparable in terms of the impact Thomas has on the politicization of the court.

He whines that the leak of the truth in this case could cause the court to look political. How so?

But, he refuses to recuse himself in a case that directly impacts his own family income, and has a wife who is HIGHLY active in attempting to DEFEAT democracy in the USA. That's not only political - it's a direct assault on a fundamental of our government.

There is NO question concerning which of these actions increases the view that the US SC is political.

 

It doesn't matter.

That is not a requirement for recusal.

 

Asked and answered.

 

Yeah, actually it is.

Look, I get it, she's involved in politics for the opposition. (Trump) But that alone is not a reason for Thomas to recuse himself unless a case directly involves her. Nor should it be as that would be disenfranchisement as it would place both of them in a position of choosing either his work, or her right to political speech.

 

You're not following along. What's the issue with you?

The failure of Justice Thomas to recuse himself in a case that directly affected his family income is one of the cases.

The other is that his wife used her position in an attempt to defeat American democracy. That can not be written off as an expression of political opinion.

These were acts that directly assaulted the idea that the court is separate from politics.

 

Then her business was a part of the case in front of him? If not then you cannot say it directly affected his family income. It might have affected it indirectly. But indirectly is not the standard.

Which has nothing to do with her husband unless she is charged with a crime and it gets appealed all the way to SCOTUS.