Clarence Thomas' network tied to efforts to overturn the 2020 election results: NYT

[turbinetree]

By Bob Brigham
Published February 22, 2022

?id=24712413&width=800&height=430

A network of people tied to Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas and his wife went into action following the 2020 presidential election, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

The newspaper reported that "a number of longtime friends and associates of the Thomases" were either involved in legal efforts to overturn the election results or had helped to plan Jan. 6 rallies.

The report focused on wife Ginni Thomas, reporting "it was after Trump’s November loss that she would prove her loyalty beyond doubt, when she and her group urged on efforts to overturn the election."

https://www.rawstory.com/ginni-thomas-election-2020/

Okay, Roberts what are you going to do, have chit chat with this jerk and tell that it might be wise to retire....because someone needs to be brought before the committee and asked some questions, this is just outrageous, these two and others need to have a John Dean moment when he (Dean) was asked by Senator Ervin......

?t=97

https://www.rawstory.com/ginni-thomas-election-2020/

[Wounded Bear]

1. Oddly enough, our Supreme Court does not have a code of ethics...

[StClone]

10. Top legal minds, scholars, jurisprudence, purists

What qualities should they possess as Supremos?

--Compassion, empathy, and respect for the essential dignity of all persons.
--Courtesy.
--Patience.
--Moral courage and high ethics.
--A reputation for honesty, integrity and fairness.
--Strong, dignified interpersonal skills that command authority.
--Confidence, with an absence of pomposity and authoritarian tendencies.

And for some of the great ones the feeling of being above the law.

[KS Toronado]

14. I'd wager Brett Kavanaugh & Amy Coney Barrett would fail your list

[BradAllison]

19. Both are fucking idiots. n/m

[Bettie]

26. Gorsuch would fail as well

Oh, and Alito.

[DENVERPOPS]

16. Hell if that were the standards

the justices needed to possess, there are a whole big bunch of current justices that would fail miserably...........

[Blue Owl]

2. Um, I'll take 'Conflict of Interest' for $1,000 Alex

[leftieNanner]

3. Is it even possible to subpoena a SCOTUS Justice?

His wife is just a regular citizen, so she could be.

For a very long time, we have been saying that SCOTUS should have the same ethics rules as all other judges. Not gonna happen soon, unfortunately.

[Escurumbele]

15. Yes, they can be impeached.

The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment. ... The only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805.

How many votes does it take to impeach a Supreme Court justice?
The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified such officials from holding public offices in the future.

[leftieNanner]

27. Impeached - yes

But I don't know whether the J6 Committee can subpoena him. Ginny - they can.

[dhol82]

4. He should have never been seated in the first place

Piece of dreck that he was and is.

[Gore1FL]

12. John Danforth gave us Thomas and Hawley.

For some reason he is considered a credible elder statesmen in Missouri.

[JHB]

22. It was a conflict of interest on behalf of Ganforth that should have kept Thomas off the SC...

...even before Anita Hill's name surfaces.

Thomas didn't recuse himself in a suit involving Danforth's family's company (Ralston Purina), and decided in its favor, a decision worth millions to his family.

[DURHAM D]

5. Why is this being reported now?

Also, who doesn't already know this?

He does not belong on the court. He was not qualified.

[Cracklin Charlie]

6. NYT?

Well, doggies….

This seems real bad.

[jalan48]

7. Eleven Democrats voted to confirm. Why?

On October 15, 1991, after the testimony, the Senate voted to confirm Thomas as an associate justice of the Supreme Court by a 52–48 vote.[65] In all, Thomas received the votes of 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats, while 46 Democrats and two Republicans voted to reject his nomination.[90]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas#Supreme_Court_nomination_and_confirmation

[LiberalLovinLug]

11. Wait what?

"...two Republicans voted to reject his nomination"

[BumRushDaShow]

18. I had to scan the archived NYT article in Wikipedia

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/16/us/the-thomas-confirmation-how-the-senators-voted-on-thomas.html

and it was

Oregon: (Bob) Packwood (R) No* (resigned after facing expulsion but is still alive today)
Vermont: (Jim) Jeffords (R) No* (later became an I but passed away in 2014)

[BradAllison]

20. A few Democrats were shamed by the "high tech lynching" bullshit.

And the fact misogyny is easier to bear than bigotry.

[Wounded Bear]

30. Back then both were pretty easy to sweep under the rug...nt

[world wide wally]

8. Impeach the asshole.

Keep turning the screws tighter and tighter until he resigns!

[Paladin]

9. If he had even a shade of ethics, Thomas would resign.

But we all know how much ethics matter to Thomas, at this point. About as much as they matter to that wife of his.

[Captain Zero]

23. Or at least recuse himself where WIFE is involved.

This won't be the first case where his wife has some involvement with a party of interest before the court. He needs to recuse himself in such instances or be impeached.

[DFW]

25. Thomas has ethics like the sun has glaciers n/t

[miyazaki]

31. Rofl.

[Deminpenn]

13. The New Yorker's Jane Mayer

wrote a long story about Ginni Thomas just a couple weeks ago in that magazine.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/31/is-ginni-thomas-a-threat-to-the-supreme-court

[underpants]

24. Good. I want to read that too.

Not even half the way thru the NYT article. They are so scarily organized, almost like a secret society but one operating in the open.

[calimary]

35. It was a most informative read.

I’m writing an ask about it for this weekend’s Call to Action email.

[msfiddlestix]

17. Well how d'ya like that? The New York Effin Times picks up the story at long last. n/t

[Jetheels]

21. Can of Coke. N/t

[L. Coyote]

28. Has a Supreme Court justice ever been dragged before a Congressional committee?

[Paladin]

29. Thomas would just call it an "Electronic Lynching" once more.

And go on his merry way...

[lagomorph777]

32. The Insurrection Or Rebellion Clause of the 14th Amendment is applicable.

Impeach his ass.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

33. For this thread

Link to tweet