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 could recuse myself to help settle down the corruption cases building against me…. Naaaa, I’m a fucking Supreme Court justice, I AM the law”
i feel like there’s a good Judge Dredd photoshop waiting to happen here…
If you could offer enough money, you could probably get him to show up to hear cases dressed liked Judge Dredd.
That would be a bribe and Justice Clarence Thomas has proved time and time again that he’s never accepted a bribe!
He’ll accept a gift, though. If you buy him, like, 300 Judge Dredd costumes and a couple for his mom, then it would just be bad manners not to wear them, right?
maybe just a yacht would do it…
And I’m here to remind you
Of the mess you made when you killed Roe v Wade
It’s not fair, don’t deny it!
The bribes you bear you say they gave away
You- you… Yacht ta know!
Here you go.
well, at least AI is good for something
I mean, given that Roberts is scared of AI, and I’m not wasting more on Clarence than the four minutes it took to generate this, it seemed appropriate.
Why is he scared of AI, did the Pope say something about it?
Because AI is coming for all of our jobs! Fear, fear for your lives!
It’s the usual conservative reactionary impetus.
Rule of thumb: if you see “supreme” and “democracy” used simultaneously, someone is trying to fuck you.
Brb, I’m gonna go talk to your mom about supreme democracy
I left myself wide open. For shame
Not as wide open as she is.
…
…
ₗᵢₖₑ ᵧₒᵤᵣ ₘₒₘ
…
Fare thee well, Lemmy! * smoke bomb *
I’m a little worried about what the fartographer puts in their smoke bombs.
This is such a dumb sentence…
Not as dumb as lifetime appointments in democracies, but go off
I’ll have uhh… a #9 double democracy supreme, with cheese
we are well beyond anyone in the SC recusing themselves for any reason. these dems are smokin the reefer
I get that they want to be on record pressuring him to recuse himself from the trial but I agree, this seems like a waste of breath.
deleted by creator
Spoiler:
He won’tif he hadn’t resigned, he won’t recuse.
Urging Clarence Thomas to behave ethically is like urging an oil tycoon to put the lives and health of people over profits.
Neither is ever going to happen unless you force them to.
It really fucking sucks that this angry asshole who’s primary motivation is getting revenge on the people who once tried to hold him accountable for being a serial sex pest has the ability to fuck the entire country for the rest of his life with zero recourse to stop him.
This was what I immediately thought of. I think his usual “look” is an attempt to try not to laugh maniacally at how much he loves being a partisan hack with impunity.
There is recourse, but that sort of thing only happens to democrats. We just don’t have the ‘unhinged violent nutjob’ supply the bad guys do.
Is his wife facing charges for being a leader of the movement that led to Jan 6th?
No, she attended a rally before the attack, and has continued to endorse their election lies, but her good friend Liz Cheney stopped Congress from looking at her too closely and regular old prosecutors don’t have the courage to hold someone as connected as her to account.
“regular old prosecutors” are overwhelmingly right-wingers.
I swear the finger-wagging will work this time! Come on everyone, behave and follow the rules! /s
Seriously though, when will Dems key into the fact that the right doesn’t give a fuck about rules or institution? They’ve been doing obstructionist politics since Obama. They are obviously not interested in playing fair or governing effectively.
So, at what point do Dems become complicit?..
*I am not saying; don’t vote blue. Im saying we have to demand more from those who we elect before it is too late.
Its almost too late.
I’d say when they have an actual majority to push meaningful legislation to address this and don’t. I can’t think of a time since the first 2 years Obama was in office (and prior to that, they were obstructionists but nowhere near the behavior you see now) this was the case.
So I don’t think there has been an opportunity to actually address it with a dem majority. Republicans had the house right up from Obama’s third year until Trumps 3rd year, and the Senate has been Republican dominated for about the same.
Do you expect Republicans to pass a law that stops Republicans from being obstructionists?
I don’t.
You missed the greater point, in exactly the same way Dems do. I will try to put it a better way:
Your thinking and planning is constrained by rules. Their thinking and planning is not. You play fair, while they cheat. This is a losing strategy.
What way is there to cheat with a minority? I’m not following here. What are you suggesting be done?
Dont be obtuse. That minority gets the shit they want, regardless of public opinion.
Look at the supreme court. Look at climate policy. Look at the popular vote. Look at gun policy. Look at reproductive rights. Look at trans rights. Look at the fairness doctrine. Look at health-care. Look at infrastructure. Look at public education. Look at higher education. Look at privatized-prisons. etc etc etc
Im suggesting the democrats should do what they were elected to do; pass progressive policy and legislation.
I’m not being obtuse, I don’t follow. How do they pass progressive legislation when obstructionists (Republicans) control the House and/or Senate, as they have for 20 years?
There’s an intelligence phrase that describes the democratic ruling class: controlled opposition.
“Who put this pubic hair in my Supreme Court?”
How about they stop “urging” the enemy to stop doing something, and instead of being feckless whiners, actually put on their big-boy pants and MAKE THEM!
Often, the only way to make them is to change the law, and that can’t be done without the consent of their corrupt allies in the Legislative Branch.
Great sentiment, but how would they do that? House Democrats don’t really have any power
Sure they could at least call for an investigation into him, make sure while it is going on he is forced to testify in Congress.
He will if Dems pay him enough.
this
The problem is house democrats arent using speech to tell him. Loads and loads of $peech.
The law: its muh!
“La loi, c’est moi.”
That was my first impulse but he def doesn’t know French so I thought it would be
incongressincongruentLa loi, c’est 💋, 👨🍳
I’ll take Things That Won’t Happen for 200, Alex
“No” -Clarence Thomas
This is the best summary I could come up with:
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.
“This time, we must urge you to recuse yourself from any involvement in the case of Anderson v. Griswold, because your impartiality is reasonably questioned by substantial numbers of fair-minded members of the public, who believe you wife Virginia (‘Ginni’) Thomas’s substantial involvement in the events leading up to the January 6 insurrection, and the financial incentive it presents for your household if President Trump is re-elected, are disqualifying,” the lawmakers wrote.
“It is unthinkable that you could be impartial in deciding whether an event your wife personally organized qualifies as an ‘insurrection’ that would prevent someone from holding the office of President.”
Democratic Reps. Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania, Glenn Ivey of Maryland, Gerald Connolly of Virginia, Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Dan Goldman of New York also signed the letter.
But Thomas continues to face scrutiny for refusing to recuse himself from several other Jan. 6-related cases, including one involving whether Trump has presidential immunity from federal prosecution.
The Supreme Court last month denied special counsel Jack Smith’s request to step in ahead of the normal appeals process.
The original article contains 533 words, the summary contains 220 words. Saved 59%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
