Walking Conflict Of Interest Ginni Thomas Finally Catching Peoples Attention

[fncceo]

That is entirely false.

Imagine for a moment a man wants to commit a murder. He grabs a handgun, takes a bullet out of the box, loads it in the chamber, and sets out to find his target. At the local grocery store he catches up with the target and in the middle of a the produce section he draws the pistol and pulls the trigger. *click, click, click* Unknown to the man, the gun's firing pin was damaged, the primer on the round defective, and the whole thing had been doused in water leaving the powder wet. This thing was never going to fire. Nevertheless, the man is guilty of attempted murder.

Ineptitude is not a defense to a criminal act.

He had opportunity ... failure is the difference between attempted murder and murder.

However, if he went to kill his victim with a gun made out of pipe cleaner and glitter glue, he wouldn't be charged with attempted murder ... he would be taken to hospital for psychiatric assessment.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

But if you do engage in an action intended to overthrow the government, the ineptitude of your plan does not shield you from culpability. After all, is is only failure of such attempts that allows enforcement of such a law. Because successfully overthrowing the government is known as revolution.

Well nobody is saying you have to succeed to be liable. It just has to be something of a viable plan.

Even for example a large group declaring it's own state or nation like OWS and the other leftwing groups did and continue to do can't be found guilty of sedition because they are not actually attacking the Gov't of the United States, even when attacking federal property.

This is why sedition is one of the most rarely charged offenses in federal courts.

You actually have to be using force in an attempt to unseat/defeat the lawful gov't.

The courts found themselves in a serious quandary both during and after the civil war over sedition and treason which is why all the southern states had to be readmitted to the Union after the war and none of the confederates were charged as such for their actions during the war.

The same goes with the trouble they are running into screaming "Insurrection" over Janary 6th when it doesn't meet the legal definition.

The attempts to charge a few of them with sedition is an attempt to set the stage for making examples of a few under the charges of Insurrection.

It was a huge legitimate protest with a handful of really bad actors most of whom it seems were working at the direction of or or with full knowledge of undercover federal agents organizing them.

It's going to be a very long, drawn out fight trying to hang these folks for anything other than relatively minor crimes other than those who assaulted cops and actually broke into the Capitol.

The video evidence actually shows some pretty egregious actions by federal agents/police inciting the crowd which then led to the final breaking and entry.

I want everyone involved who acted illegally that day punished appropriately and for most that's nothing more than a civil trespass violation for refusing to leave after having been invited in by Capitol Cops.

Then we need to get to the questions of why the one person with overall responsibility for Capitol Security refused to have the DC guard activated and DC Riot Police in place before it even began.

That person was Nancy Pelosi who apparently feared the Guard might be coopted by Trump to prevent Biden's nomination.

They had full knowledge apparently that it was going to go beyond a simple legal protest and federal agents/police most definitely at some point were completely overwhelmed and ordered to essential stand down and invite them all in.

This whole damned thing is a mess and they are seriously violating the rights of those being held, many without charge or bail and prevented from contact with Congressional Reps, Lawyers, family etc and no legal means by which to challenge their charges.

This will still be plaguing us going into the next presidential election if not beyond.

 

[Lesh]

There is no conflict of interests, she's not on the court and not working for the Federal Gov't.

She IS however influencing her husband who IS on the court...and voting consistently in HER interest

 

[Nostra]

She IS however influencing her husband who IS on the court...and voting consistently in HER interest

She is? Provide your evidence.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Stephen Bryer, Elana Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor...

Define radical activist, then explain why you libel these three justices'.

BTW, Civil Rights is and continues to be reformist, not radical if one considers the Preamble to the Constitution on social justice (as are equal rights and equal opportunities). Radical Activists are today those who seek to suppress the rights to vote, and a revolutionary is one sought to in the minority supporting trump and his false claim that the election was stolen.

 

[BackAgain]

Imagine if a Supreme Court justice was married to a radical activist who defended a group charged with sedition, encouraged a rally challenging election results, and gave out awards to people with an interest in cases appearing before the Court.

As it turns out, you don’t have to imagine. That’s a description of Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

For years, Ginni Thomas has been a walking conflict of interest that everyone has seemingly agreed not to talk about. It’s not as if she tried to hide. She’s been a fixture in conservative circles since the 1980s. She has had her own lobbying firm for more than a decade.

Is Ginni Thomas a Threat to the Supreme Court?

Behind closed doors, Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife is working with many groups directly involved in controversial cases before the Court.

www.newyorker.com

Your description is silly. But let’s play along:

Now, complete your alleged “thought.”

Justice Thomas is married to a woman with her own political views. And? What follows from that? Is it your stupid contention that he should recuse himself from participating in any case arriving at the Supreme Court where the topic of his wife’s views may come up? Why?

Or are you one of the idiots who believes he has some duty (or even a right) to muzzle his wife?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you saying that her career should have ended when her husband was appointed to the court?

And her freedom of speech, obviously.

 

[Rye Catcher]

There were two radical leftwing activists actually on the court until Ginsburg died.

Ginsburg thought other nations laws should hold equal merit to our own and the constitution on social issues and Sotomayor claims she's uniquely qualified because she's Hispanic and a woman and yanks the court hard to left on those and other issues at nearly every opportunity.

Being a women and Hispanic are factors which Justice Sotomayor might have have experienced, that is unfavorable circumstances with regard to financial or social opportunities; these experiences are those of many minorities. Denial of systemic racism in the United States is on going, and something White Men rarely experience.

 

[Rye Catcher]

And her freedom of speech, obviously.

CONGRESS Shall make no laws ...".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CONGRESS Shall make no laws ...".

Yeah, but her husband is a black conservative.
There has to be an exception in that case, right?

 

[Rye Catcher]

There is no conflict of interests, she's not on the court and not working for the Federal Gov't.

Lobbyists ring a bell?

 

[Rye Catcher]

Yeah, but her husband is a black conservative.
There has to be an exception in that case, right?

And this black conservative was accused of sexual promiscuity (as was Kavanaugh). Seems conservatives are not moved by these two men.

 

[BackAgain]

CONGRESS Shall make no laws ...".

What governmental entity anywhere in the United States IS allowed to make a law that violates that 1st Amendment prohibition?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lobbyists ring a bell?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And this black conservative was accused of sexual promiscuity (as was Kavanaugh). Seems conservatives are not moved by these two men.

Sexual promiscuity?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Is it your stupid contention that he should recuse himself from participating in any case arriving at the Supreme Court where the topic of his wife’s views may come up? Why?

He should recuse himself from participating in any case arriving at the Supreme Court where his wife was involved.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

And this black conservative was accused of sexual promiscuity (as was Kavanaugh). Seems conservatives are not moved by these two men.

Wait a second, what's wrong with promiscuity?

 

[BackAgain]

She IS however influencing her husband who IS on the court...and voting consistently in HER interest

Hm. So if he believes A over B AND his wife also happens to believe A over B, then he is ruling in his wife’s interest?

Or are you claiming that he bends his judicial philosophy and his decisions to conform to her views? Maybe you have something beyond pure speculation to support that claim? I’d be interested in seeing it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He should recuse himself from participating in any case arriving at the Supreme Court where his wife was involved.

In which cases was his wife "involved"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wait a second, what's wrong with promiscuity?

Rye is worried, because Thomas is black.