The former president has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling in Colorado that he is ineligible to appear on the state primary ballot because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
A group of House Democrats on Thursday called on conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a case involving former President Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on Colorado’s Republican primary ballot.
Trump on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado court ruling last month that disqualified him from appearing on the ballot over his conduct leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The former president’s appeal came after the state’s Republican Party filed its own appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision. The state court put its ruling on hold to allow for appeals, meaning Trump could remain on the ballot pending U.S. Supreme Court action.
A group of House Democrats, led by Rep. Hank Johnson, of Georgia, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee’s courts subcommittee, demanded that Thomas recuse himself from the case in a letter dated Thursday.
I’ve been opposed to Thomas being on the court since the Anita Hill testimony and this guy is clearly shady AF given all the gifts he’s received. Still, has there been reasonable evidence that this already super conservative shitstain has been influenced by his friends or his wife? In other words, has there been any direct correlation between his associations and his rulings?
I mean, to be fair, I’m a regular working stiff and feel that I’m relatively impartial given my associations. I find that being (as) neutral (as possible) gives me a better understanding of things and frankly a stronger moral backbone. Who’s to say a SCJ can’t do the same? Kellyanne Conway’s husband doesn’t seem to have a problem with having an opposing opinion from his wife.
Granted, I’m not employed by The People of The United States nor, for better or worse, have I taken an oath to protect the Constitution of the US. The gravitas of the situation isn’t lost on me, I just feel like this is a bit of a waste of time for the Dems and it seems awfully hypocritical when they’re deflecting Joe’s influence in Hunter’s actions and associations.
yes, there are now detailed records coming out from his conservative connections, many of which have tangential ties to his decisions.
youre not going to find a sticky note or email stating the quid pro quo, but there is little doubt this piece of human garbage has no problem taking money and pushing the conservative agenda no matter what.
mob bosses dont order people to be killed. they lament the existence of those people, and it happens.
I think what the other user is asking is, have any of his rooms gone differently than you’d expect from someone with his constitutional philosophy. Saying, “He ruled in favor of a friend,” is significantly different than, “He ruled in favor of a friend with a ruling that’s very out of the norm for how he typically rules.”
Just to respond to the last part of your post alone: If the question about the Bidens was that Joe influenced Hunter then sure, but what the GQP are trying to impeach him for is Hunter influencing Joe. Only one of them is the President, so influence is only a problem in the second scenario, and so far there’s no evidence of it.
Well also, if I’m not mistaken, the allegations are regarding a time frame when Biden was either VP or not in office. It just all seems like “theater” that we should be a little more leery of rather than allowing our corporate media overlords, and politicians, to divide us for their power and profit.
You completely misunderstand how recusal works. You don’t recuse yourself because it’s been proven you’ve been taking bribes. You get removed and possibly jailed for that. You recuse yourself from a given trial to avoid the appearance of having a non-neutral position on the case because a reasonable person might believe you may have influenced or associations that could make your ruling look like something other than impartial.
Recusal isn’t stepping down from the bench. It’s just saying that the person in question has a level of involvement in a case that they’re concerned that they may give off the appearance of having a prejudiced opinion.
Thomas is one of the dirtiest judges in the history of the Supreme Court. He has no regard for the history of the institution. He’s driven by power and power alone. He’s not going to step down despite the records of payments received and hidden, and he’s likely not going to recuse himself over the appearance of impropriety because he’s completely unethical.
Judges used to have a higher standard than “I think I can be impartial”. They used to be expected to recuse if there was any potential conflict of interest, whether or not it would actually impact them.