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.
How about this: no matter what the decision is, Colorado keeps trump off the ballot anyway, with the rationale being that Thomas is a corrupt bastard in the tank for trump. It’s not like anything matters anymore.
[note: I don’t actually advocate this, for the most obvious reasons]
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.
In December 15, 2023, we wrote imploring that you recuse yourself from any participation in the case of United States v. Trump, given your wife’s intimate involvement in Mr. Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and to obstruct its certification. This week, we are compelled to write to you again. 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.
I’ve been opposed to Thomas being on the court since the Anita Hill testimony and this guy is clearly shady AF given all the gifts he’s received. Still, has there been reasonable evidence that this already super conservative shitstain has been influenced by his friends or his wife? In other words, has there been any direct correlation between his associations and his rulings?
I mean, to be fair, I’m a regular working stiff and feel that I’m relatively impartial given my associations. I find that being (as) neutral (as possible) gives me a better understanding of things and frankly a stronger moral backbone. Who’s to say a SCJ can’t do the same? Kellyanne Conway’s husband doesn’t seem to have a problem with having an opposing opinion from his wife.
Granted, I’m not employed by The People of The United States nor, for better or worse, have I taken an oath to protect the Constitution of the US. The gravitas of the situation isn’t lost on me, I just feel like this is a bit of a waste of time for the Dems and it seems awfully hypocritical when they’re deflecting Joe’s influence in Hunter’s actions and associations.
yes, there are now detailed records coming out from his conservative connections, many of which have tangential ties to his decisions.
youre not going to find a sticky note or email stating the quid pro quo, but there is little doubt this piece of human garbage has no problem taking money and pushing the conservative agenda no matter what.
mob bosses dont order people to be killed. they lament the existence of those people, and it happens.
I think what the other user is asking is, have any of his rooms gone differently than you’d expect from someone with his constitutional philosophy. Saying, “He ruled in favor of a friend,” is significantly different than, “He ruled in favor of a friend with a ruling that’s very out of the norm for how he typically rules.”
You completely misunderstand how recusal works. You don’t recuse yourself because it’s been proven you’ve been taking bribes. You get removed and possibly jailed for that. You recuse yourself from a given trial to avoid the appearance of having a non-neutral position on the case because a reasonable person might believe you may have influenced or associations that could make your ruling look like something other than impartial.
Recusal isn’t stepping down from the bench. It’s just saying that the person in question has a level of involvement in a case that they’re concerned that they may give off the appearance of having a prejudiced opinion.
Thomas is one of the dirtiest judges in the history of the Supreme Court. He has no regard for the history of the institution. He’s driven by power and power alone. He’s not going to step down despite the records of payments received and hidden, and he’s likely not going to recuse himself over the appearance of impropriety because he’s completely unethical.
Just to respond to the last part of your post alone: If the question about the Bidens was that Joe influenced Hunter then sure, but what the GQP are trying to impeach him for is Hunter influencing Joe. Only one of them is the President, so influence is only a problem in the second scenario, and so far there’s no evidence of it.
Well also, if I’m not mistaken, the allegations are regarding a time frame when Biden was either VP or not in office. It just all seems like “theater” that we should be a little more leery of rather than allowing our corporate media overlords, and politicians, to divide us for their power and profit.
we are well beyond anyone in the SC recusing themselves for any reason. these dems are smokin the reefer
Shouldn’t they be asking the three judges that Trump himself appointed due to the obvious conflicts of interest? I mean, the chances of that happening are also less than zero, but at least there’s more solid legal basis for the request in the first place.
His wife going to the Jan 6 rally to support Trump and spreading his election misinfo is an even more obvious conflict of interest.
Saying the Trump appointees should refuse themselves because of that is like saying any case any part of the Biden admin is a part of should have Jackson recuse herself.
His appointees haven’t even strongly leaned his way in previous decisions. But then a lot of their really unpopular decisions are probably right from a legal standpoint if not from a policy one and policy is supposed to be the role of Congress. For example the EPA decisions that amount to “when Congress delegates some of their authority to an agency, they only delegate the authority they specify in the legislation and not an inch more.”
