I believe it to be true that Clarence Thomas could not even be prevented from taking part

in a SCOTUS review of Ginni's appeal of her criminal conviction if that were to occur. He is free to CHOOSE to recuse himself, but he cannot be forced to do so.

Apparently, the only way that he might be influenced to recuse himself is if the weight of BIPARTISAN public opinion was to become unbearable. With regard to that, would there be widespread outrage and loud demands for him to recuse IF GINNI WAS CALLED AS A WITNESS by the January 6th Committee and/or a criminal prosecution of a person charged with criminal acts to reverse the Biden victory?

I agree with those who say there is already plenty of reason for a reputable Justice to recuse from taking part in any review of a January 6th-related appeal but, obviously, Clarence is not such a Justice. Would Ginni being called to testify possibly be enough to put his back flat against the wall?

How could any judge sit on a case in which his wife had been a wiiness?

21 replies, 2838 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

21 replies	Author	Time	Post
I believe it to be true that Clarence Thomas could not even be prevented from taking part (Original post)	Atticus	May 22	OP
No bipartisan	exboyfil	May 22	#1
Clarence Thomas will never recuse himself.	dchill	May 22	#2
Correct, there is no forcing a justice to do anything.	elleng	May 22	#3
you COULD force them off the bench	RussBLib	May 22	#16
charge her to the fullest extent of the law...and let public opinion take the wheel.	Grasswire2	May 22	#4
I'm with 'ya, but............	MyOwnPeace	May 22	#12
It ABSOLUTELY must end.	calimary	May 22	#13
"look forward, not back" is about to lose us our republic.	Grasswire2	May 22	#14
She was on the Bush inauguration committee!	LisaM	May 22	#5
I have a different take:	no_hypocrisy	May 22	#6
by being a republican judge.	barbtries	May 22	#7
He never thought they would be caught in the act	Mr. Ected	May 22	#8
He has no say unless a case makes it to scotus.....	getagrip_already	May 22	#9
I think he could work the rocket docket.	plimsoll	May 22	#10
Clarence Thomas recusal	donte	May 22	#11
We need a new Amendment to the Constitution...and as soon as possible...on impeaching SC Justices.	Samrob	May 22	#15
well its already there.	drray23	May 22	#17
Essentially jury nullification	no_hypocrisy	May 23	#18
Never happening	budkin	May 23	#19
My prediction -- the Court will never take a challenge to a Ginni conviction	onenote	May 23	#20
I totally agree. I was using her fictional and highly unlikely criminal conviction as	Atticus	May 23	#21

Response to Atticus (Original post)

Sun May 22, 2022, 06:48 PM

exboyfil (17,141 posts)

1. No bipartisan

because the GOP only cares about power. Trouble is their voters are the same way.

I believe it to be true that Clarence Thomas could not even be prevented from taking part

1. No bipartisan

2. Clarence Thomas will never recuse himself.

3. Correct, there is no forcing a justice to do anything.

16. you COULD force them off the bench

4. charge her to the fullest extent of the law...and let public opinion take the wheel.

12. I'm with 'ya, but............

13. It ABSOLUTELY must end.

14. "look forward, not back" is about to lose us our republic.

5. She was on the Bush inauguration committee!

6. I have a different take:

7. by being a republican judge.

8. He never thought they would be caught in the act

9. He has no say unless a case makes it to scotus.....

10. I think he could work the rocket docket.

11. Clarence Thomas recusal

15. We need a new Amendment to the Constitution...and as soon as possible...on impeaching SC Justices.

17. well its already there.

18. Essentially jury nullification

19. Never happening

20. My prediction -- the Court will never take a challenge to a Ginni conviction

21. I totally agree. I was using her fictional and highly unlikely criminal conviction as