Clarence Thomas recuses himself as Supreme Court rejects ex-Trump lawyer John Eastman's appeal

[Dante]

If Thomas is recusing himself, the conservatives don’t need his vote. Cynicism is correct. Nobody “got” to Thomas to tell him that he’s hurting the integrity of the court.

Do you know what the case is/was going to decide? Eastman doesn't get a walk from the recusal. I asked you what you claim he was going to walk on.

Clarence Thomas recuses himself as Supreme Court rejects ex-Trump lawyer John Eastman's appeal​

 

[Dante]

Thomas is already feeling the heat from his unethical associations. Not recusing himself would have increased the temperature.

I doubt that matters to him.

 

[DudleySmith]

Hardly, Thomas is simply being his consistent and ethical self. Only mindless haters would miss that.

None of these gimps ever ran around demanding Ginsburg recuse her slimy partisan self from any case, so yeah, we can ignore these deviants and their hilarious pretenses of having principles n stuff.

She should have been impeached when she said she would leave the country if Americans elected Trump, and then she didn't leave. lol these frauds could care less about 'Integrity'.

 

[bodecea]

WASHINGTON — Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas for the first time recused himself from a case involving the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by then-President Donald Trump's supporters as the Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal brought by former Trump legal adviser John Eastman.

NBC News
Follow

Clarence Thomas recuses himself as Supreme Court rejects ex-Trump lawyer John Eastman's appeal​

Hmm...

MSN

Big Big Yuge Bigly News: Trump and His Lawyers Appeals Keep Falling on Deaf Ears @ the SCOTUS. Did Eastman try flattering Justice Thomas, mistakenly believing that all the Biggies in Power are susceptible to flattery? I believe there is some truth to that argument, as Eastman got close to Trump through flattery.

Bad look for a Justice to have to recluse himself in a case con-cerning.................*checks notes................sedition.

 

[Dante]

I agree. I agree with people who believe Clarence Thomas should never have confirmed in the first place. I believe evidence shows Justice Thomas is much more astute, intellectual, and reasoned in his arguments in opinion of the Court. He's became a lightning rod for many. But his confirmation hearings showed what he is. As with Justice Kavanaugh.

DudleySmith You believe my comments to be amusing? I usually don't deal in caricatures when in a serious discussion:

Deconstructing Clarence Thomas

The justice’s reactionary legal philosophy rests on faith in the power of adversity to fuel black progress.

www.theatlantic.com

Do you know any of this, or are you totally focused on the personal attacks? I understand the ethical issues now raised, but I suspect your views of exactly who and what Justice Thomas is, is warped.

Ask the author: Making the invisible justice visible – "The Enigma of Clarence Thomas"

The following is a series of questions posed by Ronald Collins to Corey Robin in connection with Robin’s new book, “The Enigma of Clarence Thomas” (Metropolitan Books, 2019). Corey Robin […]

www.scotusblog.com

‘The Enigma of Clarence Thomas’ Makes a Strong Case for Its Provocative Thesis (Published 2019)

In his new book, Corey Robin argues that the black nationalism underpinning Thomas’s jurisprudence is a “secret hiding in plain sight.”

www.nytimes.com

The Enigma of Clarence Thomas by Corey Robin review – a superb study

An original assessment of a controversial figure – Donald Trump’s favourite judge – who believes only money can free black America

www.theguardian.com

Hon. Robert S. Smith: https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/ecm_pro_064794.pdf

Two Years After the Anita Hill Hearings, Clarence Thomas Strikes Back

From 1993: The Supreme Court Justice is still fuming about his tumultuous confirmation. In an unprecedented step, he is going public with his grievances—and lashing out in his votes.

www.newyorker.com

 

[BackAgain]

WASHINGTON — Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas for the first time recused himself from a case involving the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by then-President Donald Trump's supporters as the Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal brought by former Trump legal adviser John Eastman.

NBC News
Follow

Clarence Thomas recuses himself as Supreme Court rejects ex-Trump lawyer John Eastman's appeal​

Hmm...

MSN

Big Big Yuge Bigly News: Trump and His Lawyers Appeals Keep Falling on Deaf Ears @ the SCOTUS. Did Eastman try flattering Justice Thomas, mistakenly believing that all the Biggies in Power are susceptible to flattery? I believe there is some truth to that argument, as Eastman got close to Trump through flattery.

All of our liberals who insist on using the non-word “bigly” expose themselves as chuckleheads.

 

[Lastamender]

Thomas is already feeling the heat from his unethical associations. Not recusing himself would have increased the temperature.

Thomas is just another victim of accusations by haters. None of them are true.

 

[Dante]

All of our liberals who insist on using the non-word “bigly” expose themselves as chuckleheads.

Trumpisms are hilarious.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

It is at least a sign that the revelations of investigative groups like ProPublica has had real impact on the court as a whole, and made Republican-supported Supreme Court judges like Thomas feel — for the first time — less arrogant and free to act corruptly.

It is certainly true that judges historically don’t always vote “party line” on issues. Trump’s three appointed judges will likely disappoint his crazies on some issues. They are “ideological” in different ways, and mostly dedicated to corporate capitalism. Most of them would have probably been appointed by ANY Republican administration, as their names were in fact put forward by The Federalist Society. They are not really loyal to “Trump Party” authoritarianism. Judge Thomas is probably the most cynical of them all, and with his wife is probably the most outrageous and the most corrupt — but time may prove me wrong.

 

[Dante]

If Thomas is recusing himself, the conservatives don’t need his vote. Cynicism is correct. Nobody “got” to Thomas to tell him that he’s hurting the integrity of the court.

His vote to reject Eastman's appeal?

 

[Dante]

It is at least a sign that the revelations of investigative groups like ProPubluca has had real impact on the court as a whole, and made Republican-supported Supreme Court judges like Thomas feel — for the first time — less arrogant and free to act corruptly.

It is true that judges don’t ALWAYS vote party line on issues. Trump’s three appointed judges will likely disappoint his crazies on some issues. They are “ideological” in different ways, and mostly dedicated to corporate capitalism. Most of them would have probably been appointed by ANY Republican administration, as their names were in fact put forward by The Federalist Society. They are not especially loyal to “Trump Party” authoritarianism. Judge Thomas is probably the most cynical of them all, and with his wife is probably the most outrageous and the most corrupt — but time may prove me wrong.

What I posted a few years ago (2013), is still relevant:

Jeffrey Rosen: The Supreme Court. Thomas is the ideological purist

Scalia told Thomas' biographer that Thomas would overturn any judicial precedent he disagreed with whereas Saclia himself would not.

Clarence Thomas is praised by many (this includes Breyer who taught this stuff), for his technical ability dealing with complicated regulatory issues.

Clarence Thomas is the most underrated Justice in my lifetime.

Baker v. Nelson: The case y'all don't want to talk about

btw, I'm guessing they punt, but in effect that upholds prop 8. And, their lack of procreation science, and Alito's comment "this is as new as cell phones and the internte" JFC I thought we were in the House of the Cardinals with a bucnh of aged gay men who've been celibate for 50 years. LOL

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[BackAgain]

Trumpisms are hilarious.

Not what he even said.

 

[Dante]

Bad look for a Justice to have to recluse himself in a case con-cerning.................*checks notes................sedition.

Justice Thomas gave no reason for his recusal. I'd say go to what and who the appeal is about, and the inferences lay there.

I find it interesting that what is being ignored is: "Thomas stepped aside in the case involving Eastman, who had served as a law clerk to the justice."

 

[BackAgain]

Justice Thomas gave no reason for his recusal. I'd say go to what and who the appeal is about, and the inferences lay there.

I find it interesting that what is being ignored is: "Thomas stepped aside in the case involving Eastman, who had served as a law clerk to the justice."

Sounds like a valid reason for a recusal.

 

[Dante]

Not what he even said.

We heard: "I'm going to cut taxes bigly, and you're going to raise taxes bigly."

Now, I'm not quite sure what fact checkers say on this, but we all know Trump's defenders attack fact checkers.

 

[Dante]

Sounds like a valid reason for a recusal.

Sounds like the logical reason. The fact that his wife is connected to it somehow -- I believe he'd ignore, as he has before. He's a very predictable man.

 

[BackAgain]

We heard: "I'm going to cut taxes bigly, and you're going to raise taxes bigly."

Now, I'm not quite sure what fact checkers say on this, but we all know Trump's defenders attack fact checkers.

Big league.

 

[BackAgain]

Sounds like the logical reason. The fact that his wife is connected to it somehow -- I believe he'd ignore, as he has before. He's a very predictable man.

Nope. His wife’s political expressions don’t amount to any valid reason for the jurist to recuse himself.

 

[Dante]

Trumpisms are hilarious.

Yugely hilarious.

 

[Dante]

Big league.

Sluur it...

People heard it as what it became -- a Trumpism. Bigly so.