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

[BackAgain]

Do what you like. Pity, no pity, is all the same to me.

Don’t cry.

 

[d0gbreath]

Don’t cry.

I'll cry if I feeeel like it.

 

[Delldude]

Good God, you're dense.
Here's a hint as to why he recused himself, Dumte:
Eastman, who had served as a law clerk to the justice

It's in the OP......

 

[NotfooledbyW]

A recusal means that his vote wasn’t necessary. Eastman will walk.

Thomas’s recusal was to avoid ethical conflicts and necessary because his wife is involved in the whole freaking January 6 mess.

And by not recusing himself, he would’ve been the only one that could have voted in favor of Eastman.

The significance aside from the recusal is that Eastman could not reverse a judgment in the lower court, where the judge basically said that it’s too obvious that Easty committed crimes. Since he committed crimes, his emails will not be covered by attorney client privilege. Eastman is toast, he better take a plea deal or rot in prison the rest of his life I prefer they don’t give him a deal for what he tried to do to this country.

Five of the six Catholics on USSC refuse to give one of the most important suspects in the Trump criminal enterprise to overturn the election any relief. That’s huge! they won’t help Trump out either when he gets convicted that’s for sure so now the USSC has gone full rogue, deep state.

 

[BackAgain]

I'll cry if I feeeel like it.

Zzz

 

[d0gbreath]

Zzz

Woke up!

 

[BackAgain]

Woke up!

Shut up. The world would be better if you would.

 

[d0gbreath]

Shut up. The world would be better if you would.

Make me, wimp.

 

[d0gbreath]

Thomas recused because his 'ol lady is in the thick of this one.

 

[BackAgain]

Make me, wimp.

Stop crying, little sissy puppy.

Meanwhile, back on topic:

Justice Thomas recused himself from a case involving his own prior law Secretary. As he should have.

Does that alarm you?

 

[0311]

Because you say so? That means nothing at all. You snowflakes just get more pathetic by the day with your ceaseless whining about anyone who doesn't parrot your worldview.

Because he flew on a private jet provided his millionaire buddy. These trips WERE NOT REPORTED.

US Supreme Court's Thomas flew on GOP donor's jet, cites security risks

Clarence Thomas cited security concerns to justify accepting flights by private jet last year.

www.reuters.com

Thomas Took Dozens of Trips Paid For By Friends. These trips WERE NOT REPORTED.

Thomas took dozens of trips paid for by billionaire friends: ProPublica

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has taken dozens of trips paid for by at least four billionaire friends during his time on the bench, a new report from ProPublica found. The report expands up…

thehill.com

After trips Thomas ruled on cases before SCOTUS directily connected the men who paid for his trips and private jet flights.

Thomas is corrupt.

 

[d0gbreath]

Stop crying, little sissy puppy.

Meanwhile, back on topic:

Justice Thomas recused himself from a case involving his own prior law Secretary. As he should have.

Does that alarm you?

It also heavily involves Ginny. Nothing alarms me.

 

[BackAgain]

Thomas recused because his 'ol lady is in the thick of this one.

Nope. Making up shit — as you just did — doesn’t qualify as an actual “argument.”

Apparently you’ve given up completely on engaging in honest discourse.

No surprise. You’ve always sucked ass at this.

 

[d0gbreath]

Nope. Making up shit — as you just did — doesn’t qualify as an actual “argument.”

Apparently you’ve given up completely on engaging in honest discourse.

No surprise. You’ve always sucked ass at this.

It's a fairly steep learning curve, but I did read about Ginni having some involvement. You want me to google a link? Too bad.

 

[BackAgain]

It's a fairly steep learning curve, but I did read about Ginni having some involvement. You want me to google a link? Too bad.

Ginni has had occasion to exercise free speech. The spouse of a SCOTUS Justice is free to exercise her (or his) Constitutional rights. Doing so is not a valid basis upon which to insist that the Justice must recuse himself on any related topic.

Go pound salt up your ass. You’re still quite a worthless little simp.

 

[d0gbreath]

Ginni has had occasion to exercise free speech. The spouse of a SCOTUS Justice is free to exercise her (or his) Constitutional rights. Doing so is not a valid basis upon which to insist that the Justice minister at recuse himself on any related topic.

Go pound salt up your ass. You’re still quite a worthless little simp.

No one insisted. He did it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ginni has had occasion to exercise free speech.

She is on emails and was in conversations with Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff regarding the insurrection.

We don’t know if she committed any crimes yet, but she was involved and could be a material witness to those who were part of the Trump criminal enterprise to overturn the election on January 6

 

[Rogue AI]

Because he flew on a private jet provided his millionaire buddy. These trips WERE NOT REPORTED.

US Supreme Court's Thomas flew on GOP donor's jet, cites security risks

Clarence Thomas cited security concerns to justify accepting flights by private jet last year.

www.reuters.com

Thomas Took Dozens of Trips Paid For By Friends. These trips WERE NOT REPORTED.

Thomas took dozens of trips paid for by billionaire friends: ProPublica

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has taken dozens of trips paid for by at least four billionaire friends during his time on the bench, a new report from ProPublica found. The report expands up…

thehill.com

After trips Thomas ruled on cases before SCOTUS directily connected the men who paid for his trips and private jet flights.

Thomas is corrupt.

Following the advice of his security detail is hardly corrupt. If you liberal loons didn't send assassins after Justices it might be a legitimate thing for you to whine about. Alas, the corrupt left has no leg to stand on.

 

[candycorn]

Actually, they are not aligned politically.

And your initial claim(s) are in the toilet. Your post was nonsensical.

They’re not both conservatives (Thomas and Eastman?)?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No chance 6-3 rulings usually follow ideology?

Moron's r Us is hiring.

Sent a recommendation regarding you