Clarence And Virginia Thomas Have An Impressively Corrupt Activist Judge Scheme Going

[Care4all]

Do you want to be persecuted for what you believe?

Who's being persecuted?

It's a simple motion to recuse oneself?

 

[JustAGuy1]

Nope, lower courts are magistrates and JUDGES.

Only the supreme court, are they called justices, dessert texan.

The law is US CODE, for federal judges, magistrates, and the supreme court justices.

You are wrong. It is the LAW. Not some ethical rules and standards.

You've been misinformed.

You're lying.

Judges and justices are court officials who make the final decision in every case that is brought to a court of law. Depending on the jurisdiction, they can sit on the bench anywhere between six to eight years. Judges and justices must retire at least by the age of 70.

Justices are found on a state’s Appeals Court and Supreme Court. A higher court justice can either be elected or appointed.

What is the difference between a judge and a justice? - Criminal Justice Degree Hub

Are you are interested in learning more about the difference between a judge and a justice? This article will get you started on that journey!

www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com

 

[Care4all]

That’s stupid. Lots of people have an interest in the allegedly stolen election and in the 1/6 incident. Nobody said a judge can’t rule on an issue where his or her spouse has such an “interest.” You must live in Bizzaro world!

Of course judges are REQUIRED to recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest. It is bizarro world, to think they don't.

 

[Care4all]

You're lying.

Judges and justices are court officials who make the final decision in every case that is brought to a court of law. Depending on the jurisdiction, they can sit on the bench anywhere between six to eight years. Judges and justices must retire at least by the age of 70.

Justices are found on a state’s Appeals Court and Supreme Court. A higher court justice can either be elected or appointed.

What is the difference between a judge and a justice? - Criminal Justice Degree Hub

Are you are interested in learning more about the difference between a judge and a justice? This article will get you started on that journey!

www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com

Silly one, the law posted is a federal law, a US CODE for the federal judicials.

In U.S. federal courts, only supreme court judges, are called JUSTICES.

WHAT you posted is about the STATE courts, NOT federal courts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

She and thus her husband, have a strong interest in the ruling of those cases

What does that mean, strong interest? Why do you feel that means conflict of interest?

If she has a strong interest in the Washington Nationals, maybe she has season tickets, does
that mean he can't rule on a case involving Major League Baseball?

If she has a strong interest in lower taxes, does that mean he can't rule on a case involving the IRS?

The PACs she belongs to, do as well.

Unless she works for a PAC that is a party to a lawsuit, where is a specific conflict?

 

[Care4all]

What does that mean, strong interest? Why do you feel that means conflict of interest?

If she has a strong interest in the Washington Nationals, maybe she has season tickets, does
that he can't rule on a case involving Major League Baseball?

If she has a strong interest in lower taxes, does that mean he can't rule on a case involving the IRS?

The PACs she belongs to, do as well.

Unless she works for a PAC that is a party to a lawsuit, where is a specific conflict?

She has a beyond huge interest in the court ruling coming out one way, over another way. That is a conflict of interest, for justice thomas.

Why is that hard to understand?

Just the appearance of there being a conflict of interest in a case's outcome, is a reason for judges to disqualify themselves.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

She has a beyond huge interest in the court ruling coming out one way, over another way. That is a conflict of interest, for justice thomas.

Why is that hard to understand?

Just the appearance of there being a conflict of interest in a case's outcome, is a reason for judges to disqualify themselves.

She has a beyond huge interest in the court ruling coming out one way, over another way.

Many, many people have a huge interest in the court's rulings.
That doesn't mean there is a conflict of interest.

If she owned $1,000,000 worth of IBM stock and he ruled on a case against IBM,
you bet that would be a conflict of interest.

If she wants lower tax rates and someone, unrelated to her, sues the IRS, how is that a conflict?

Just the appearance of there being a conflict of interest in a case's outcome, is a reason for judges to disqualify themselves.

But you're seeing an appearance of a conflict without actually giving an example of a conflict.

 

[Rogue AI]

She has a beyond huge interest in the court ruling coming out one way, over another way. That is a conflict of interest, for justice thomas.

Why is that hard to understand?

Just the appearance of there being a conflict of interest in a case's outcome, is a reason for judges to disqualify themselves.

Are you implying Thomas will rule in an usual or contradictory way to his previous rulings? If not, it's difficult to see the problem.

 

[BackAgain]

Of course judges are REQUIRED to recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest. It is bizarro world, to think they don't.

The operative phrases are “if” and “conflict of interest.” Here the if is not met and there is no conflict of interest. It is bizzaro world to pretend there is.

 

[Lakhota]

Forrest says lock up Ginnaaayyy!!!

 

[Lastamender]

Who's being persecuted?

It's a simple motion to recuse oneself?

Ginny Thomas.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Care4all]

Many, many people have a huge interest in the court's rulings.
That doesn't mean there is a conflict of interest

Many many people do have an interest, but not all people have been pubically vocal, or have access to the president's chief of staff to direct him, or is married to a justice of the supreme court, giving them more access to one party in the cases the court may receive.

Come on, stop being so obtuse!

Of course it is a conflict of interest and justice Thomas should recuse himself.

 

[Care4all]

Ginny Thomas.

Ginny is actively involved in a case her husband may hear in the court.

That is a conflict of interest for justice Thomas, which under the law, a cause for him to recuse himself.

Easy peasy!

 

[CowboyTed]

She did nothing illegal.

No one has commented about the legality of her actions...

Her husband didn't recluse himself from a case that involved her... He was the one no vote to stop her text messages being looked at...

This deeply damages the reputation of the SC impartiality... This should be very serious, I say Roberts is furious and might even publicly ask for Thomas resignation after the confirmation... This goes to the bone of Roberts (and other justices on both sides) beliefs about the court. Roberts is trying to keep the SC non political and judicial, Thomas have massively undermined that...

 

[CowboyTed]

Ginny is actively involved in a case her husband may hear in the court.

That is a conflict of interest for justice Thomas, which under the law, a cause for him to recuse himself.

Easy peasy!

Actually there is no where in the law for Thomas to actually recuse himself but it would be expected to preserve the reputation of the court...

Thomas has just severely damaged the reputation of the court and his judgement and impartiality...

Other justices could speak out about this after the nomination process is over..

 

[Care4all]

Are you implying Thomas will rule in an usual or contradictory way to his previous rulings? If not, it's difficult to see the problem.

His other ruling on the president's emails on 1/6 going to the committee law suit, SHOWS he has a conflict of interest as the sole dissenter justice....and has an appearance of such.

84 million Americans saw it that way.

Coupled with Trump mouthing off constantly on the supreme court being in his pocket.

These are reasons to recuse himself on future cases involved.

We expect and deserve the supreme court being above the fray.

That's what recusals are for...

 

[Rogue AI]

His other ruling on the president's emails on 1/6 going to the committee law suit, SHOWS he has a conflict of interest as the sole dissenter justice....and has an appearance of such.

84 million Americans saw it that way.

Coupled with Trump mouthing off constantly on the supreme court being in his pocket.

These are reasons to recuse himself on future cases involved.

We expect and deserve the supreme court being above the fray.

That's what recusals are for...

That did not address my question.

 

[Care4all]

Actually there is no where in the law for Thomas to actually recuse himself but it would be expected to preserve the reputation of the court...

Thomas has just severely damaged the reputation of the court and his judgement and impartiality...

Other justices could speak out about this after the nomination process is over..

Actually, there is a federal law in US CODE that does. I have posted it in this thread. Not an ethics rule, but actual code. There is no means of reprimand, but impeachment though. Look it up to get the full wording of the statute...


open access to law @liicornell (WSD1)

1. LII
2. U.S. Code
3. Title 28
4. PART I
5. CHAPTER 21
6. § 455

28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
(a)
Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b)He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1)
Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

Or this part of the US CODE


5)He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i)
Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii)
Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii)
Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv)
Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

 

[Care4all]

That did not address my question.

It didnt??? Why not?