January 6 - How much do you care?

Political discussions

January 6 - How much do you care?

10
7
21%
9
0
No votes
8
0
No votes
7
2
6%
6
2
6%
5
1
3%
4
2
6%
3
3
9%
2
6
18%
1
10
30%
 
Total votes: 33

User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19955
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by UNI88 »

Baldy wrote:
kalm wrote: Fri Oct 21, 2022 1:03 pm Yeah! You’d think stealing state secrets, obstruction of justice, plotting to over turn a fair election…wouldn’t require it.
WOW!

Somebody should really go arrest that guy. :coffee:
I thought kalmmy was taking about Pelosi. I didn't know she'd stolen state secrets but it wouldn't surprise me if she had.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59305
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by kalm »

Seems fairly straight forward.
Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code is the federal statute that applies to Thomas. It provides: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or his spouse “is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”

The statute says “shall” — meaning, this is not discretionary. Congress has imposed on federal judges a mandatory duty to disqualify themselves if their impartiality might be reasonably questioned. It does not matter whether Thomas issued Graham’s desired stay or denied it; he wasn’t supposed to rule at all.

Unfortunately, the statute includes no method to enforce it. Obedience to the law thus depends upon the honor of the justice or judge. Any justice in Thomas’ position who was concerned about the Supreme Court’s legitimacy — or his own integrity — would have recused himself.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... ena-recuse
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18038
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by GannonFan »

kalm wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:36 am Seems fairly straight forward.
Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code is the federal statute that applies to Thomas. It provides: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or his spouse “is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”

The statute says “shall” — meaning, this is not discretionary. Congress has imposed on federal judges a mandatory duty to disqualify themselves if their impartiality might be reasonably questioned. It does not matter whether Thomas issued Graham’s desired stay or denied it; he wasn’t supposed to rule at all.

Unfortunately, the statute includes no method to enforce it. Obedience to the law thus depends upon the honor of the justice or judge. Any justice in Thomas’ position who was concerned about the Supreme Court’s legitimacy — or his own integrity — would have recused himself.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... ena-recuse
Slippery slope. Maybe Thomas should've recused himself here or not - the issue was about Lindsey Graham, not Thomas's wife - but if we start digging into the impartiality of SCOTUS justices and which cases they should read into or which ones they shouldn't I think we'll have even more of a worry over SCOTUS legitimacy. It's basically saying that SCOTUS justices are incapable of putting aside bias, of any kind, which is not something we want to label any court with, let alone the highest court in the land. Historically, the number of times SCOTUS justices have recused themselves is extremely small.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19955
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by UNI88 »

GannonFan wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:42 am
kalm wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:36 am Seems fairly straight forward.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... ena-recuse
Slippery slope. Maybe Thomas should've recused himself here or not - the issue was about Lindsey Graham, not Thomas's wife - but if we start digging into the impartiality of SCOTUS justices and which cases they should read into or which ones they shouldn't I think we'll have even more of a worry over SCOTUS legitimacy. It's basically saying that SCOTUS justices are incapable of putting aside bias, of any kind, which is not something we want to label any court with, let alone the highest court in the land. Historically, the number of times SCOTUS justices have recused themselves is extremely small.
My personal opinion is that Thomas should recuse himself from January 6 issues but it's definitely debatable.

If they wanted the language to show that it wasn't discretionary, they would have used "must" or even "will" rather than "shall". "Shall" isn't as definitive as the author thinks it is.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18038
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by GannonFan »

UNI88 wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:50 am
GannonFan wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:42 am

Slippery slope. Maybe Thomas should've recused himself here or not - the issue was about Lindsey Graham, not Thomas's wife - but if we start digging into the impartiality of SCOTUS justices and which cases they should read into or which ones they shouldn't I think we'll have even more of a worry over SCOTUS legitimacy. It's basically saying that SCOTUS justices are incapable of putting aside bias, of any kind, which is not something we want to label any court with, let alone the highest court in the land. Historically, the number of times SCOTUS justices have recused themselves is extremely small.
My personal opinion is that Thomas should recuse himself from January 6 issues but it's definitely debatable.

If they wanted the language to show that it wasn't discretionary, they would have used "must" or even "will" rather than "shall". "Shall" isn't as definitive as the author thinks it is.
But the specifics here, for what he's done here, are often missed in the clamor over trying to score political points and web clicks. Lindsey Graham is being asked to testify before a grand jury on a phone call he had with the Georgia Secretary of State. Maybe his conversation is covered by the speech and debate clause, maybe it isn't. But that hasn't really been decided yet and needs to be decided. Thomas has delayed Graham having to sit for the grand jury until that's decided. And if it comes to the SCOTUS to actually decide that, it will likely be the full court, and not just Thomas, making that judgment. Nothing about Ginnie Thomas has been directly connected to Graham or this phone call in question. If it was her phone call or if she was in the room with Graham before/during/after the phone call, then yes, recusal would be a different story entirely. Let's see where this goes before we start the impeachment process against Thomas.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59305
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by kalm »

GannonFan wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 10:47 am
UNI88 wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:50 am

My personal opinion is that Thomas should recuse himself from January 6 issues but it's definitely debatable.

If they wanted the language to show that it wasn't discretionary, they would have used "must" or even "will" rather than "shall". "Shall" isn't as definitive as the author thinks it is.
But the specifics here, for what he's done here, are often missed in the clamor over trying to score political points and web clicks. Lindsey Graham is being asked to testify before a grand jury on a phone call he had with the Georgia Secretary of State. Maybe his conversation is covered by the speech and debate clause, maybe it isn't. But that hasn't really been decided yet and needs to be decided. Thomas has delayed Graham having to sit for the grand jury until that's decided. And if it comes to the SCOTUS to actually decide that, it will likely be the full court, and not just Thomas, making that judgment. Nothing about Ginnie Thomas has been directly connected to Graham or this phone call in question. If it was her phone call or if she was in the room with Graham before/during/after the phone call, then yes, recusal would be a different story entirely. Let's see where this goes before we start the impeachment process against Thomas.
Looks at Ginnie’s texts and emails…shakes his head. This is cut and dry. His wife, her statements, conspiracy. Of course he should recuse himself if for no other reason than an abundance of respect for the court’s reputation as an institution.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18038
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by GannonFan »

kalm wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 12:28 pm
GannonFan wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 10:47 am

But the specifics here, for what he's done here, are often missed in the clamor over trying to score political points and web clicks. Lindsey Graham is being asked to testify before a grand jury on a phone call he had with the Georgia Secretary of State. Maybe his conversation is covered by the speech and debate clause, maybe it isn't. But that hasn't really been decided yet and needs to be decided. Thomas has delayed Graham having to sit for the grand jury until that's decided. And if it comes to the SCOTUS to actually decide that, it will likely be the full court, and not just Thomas, making that judgment. Nothing about Ginnie Thomas has been directly connected to Graham or this phone call in question. If it was her phone call or if she was in the room with Graham before/during/after the phone call, then yes, recusal would be a different story entirely. Let's see where this goes before we start the impeachment process against Thomas.
Looks at Ginnie’s texts and emails…shakes his head. This is cut and dry. His wife, her statements, conspiracy. Of course he should recuse himself if for no other reason than an abundance of respect for the court’s reputation as an institution.
Considering her background, and considering what people are asking, he'd have to recuse himself on virtually every hot button item of the day. There are political sides to the vast majority of cases that come to the Court, and with her being a political activist for well on 40 years now, she figures in many of them. If he's no good to do any case that touches on Jan 6th (and again, I don't know of any specific thing tying her to Graham in this specific case other than the topic), how about abortion cases? How about any cases dealing with gerrymandering? How about cases dealing with capital punishment? How about cases dealing with affirmative action? Her career is so long now surely she's advocated for positions that place their dinner table conversations on any of these topics clearly in question.

Like I said, in this specific case, he's done nothing yet that ventures into the category of "cut and dry". He's temporarily delayed Graham's testimony until the issue of the speech and debate clause can be settled. That's not controversial or differing from past Court precedents. If he goes further, or if he doesn't fall back onto the full Court to settle the matter if it keeps getting pushed up then there's a story. We seem to want to write the story before it even happens.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
User avatar
Winterborn
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 8812
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by Winterborn »

UNI88 wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:50 am
GannonFan wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:42 am

Slippery slope. Maybe Thomas should've recused himself here or not - the issue was about Lindsey Graham, not Thomas's wife - but if we start digging into the impartiality of SCOTUS justices and which cases they should read into or which ones they shouldn't I think we'll have even more of a worry over SCOTUS legitimacy. It's basically saying that SCOTUS justices are incapable of putting aside bias, of any kind, which is not something we want to label any court with, let alone the highest court in the land. Historically, the number of times SCOTUS justices have recused themselves is extremely small.
My personal opinion is that Thomas should recuse himself from January 6 issues but it's definitely debatable.

If they wanted the language to show that it wasn't discretionary, they would have used "must" or even "will" rather than "shall". "Shall" isn't as definitive as the author thinks it is.
Tiny bit of background since you touched on something that will probably never come up in conversation again, and that is the the "strength" of certain words. :ugeek:

In my line of work (ISO standards and product liability), "shall" has the strength and meaning of "must" or "will". Twelve of us spent a half hour deciding whether or not one should use "shall" or "should" in different sections of a 20 page standard. Shall is interpreted as a must comply, should is interpreted as something that is not quite a shall and you have a bit of wiggle room. Shall does not have that wiggle room.

That said I both agree and disagree with the article that was linked earlier (LA Times), the usage of shall is correct but any judge or justice is to make that decision themself and in the case of lower courts, if there is evidence of misconduct, the case goes to a higher court. But since there is no higher court than the SC, which is why this topic is being turned into something that it is not (at least at this time with what we know).

There are clear guidelines and rules for the SC to follow (and all other courts) set forth, both by Congress and the States. The truth of the matter is that Judges and Justices are given wide latitude in this area and it has been that way since the beginning. Most often recently, judges and justices recuse themselves due to stock ownership.

A quote by Justice Jackson (1953) said of the Supreme Court "if there were a super-Supreme Court, a substantial proportion of our reversals of state courts would … be reversed. We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
Last edited by Winterborn on Thu Oct 27, 2022 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
User avatar
Winterborn
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 8812
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by Winterborn »

GannonFan wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 12:54 pm
Considering her background, and considering what people are asking, he'd have to recuse himself on virtually every hot button item of the day. There are political sides to the vast majority of cases that come to the Court, and with her being a political activist for well on 40 years now, she figures in many of them. If he's no good to do any case that touches on Jan 6th (and again, I don't know of any specific thing tying her to Graham in this specific case other than the topic), how about abortion cases? How about any cases dealing with gerrymandering? How about cases dealing with capital punishment? How about cases dealing with affirmative action? Her career is so long now surely she's advocated for positions that place their dinner table conversations on any of these topics clearly in question.

Like I said, in this specific case, he's done nothing yet that ventures into the category of "cut and dry". He's temporarily delayed Graham's testimony until the issue of the speech and debate clause can be settled. That's not controversial or differing from past Court precedents. If he goes further, or if he doesn't fall back onto the full Court to settle the matter if it keeps getting pushed up then there's a story. We seem to want to write the story before it even happens.
Yup. At this point it is much-a-do about nothing and hand wringing by D's. Justice Thomas has stayed (so far) well within the letter of the law and I would argue within the spirit as well. Now if new evidence comes out that shows different, then we can (and should) re-consider the topic.

The wanting to "write a story before it happens" is going on because of politics and the "chance" to make political hay.
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23236
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by houndawg »

GannonFan wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:42 am
kalm wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:36 am Seems fairly straight forward.



https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... ena-recuse
Slippery slope. Maybe Thomas should've recused himself here or not - the issue was about Lindsey Graham, not Thomas's wife - but if we start digging into the impartiality of SCOTUS justices and which cases they should read into or which ones they shouldn't I think we'll have even more of a worry over SCOTUS legitimacy. It's basically saying that SCOTUS justices are incapable of putting aside bias, of any kind, which is not something we want to label any court with, let alone the highest court in the land. Historically, the number of times SCOTUS justices have recused themselves is extremely small.
...we don't want to but the standards have changed and much of today's SCOTUS court is brought up rom the junior varsity. :(

They've already lost their legitimacy in the court of public opinion :coffee:
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
Baldy
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9609
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by Baldy »

houndawg wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 5:21 am
GannonFan wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:42 am

Slippery slope. Maybe Thomas should've recused himself here or not - the issue was about Lindsey Graham, not Thomas's wife - but if we start digging into the impartiality of SCOTUS justices and which cases they should read into or which ones they shouldn't I think we'll have even more of a worry over SCOTUS legitimacy. It's basically saying that SCOTUS justices are incapable of putting aside bias, of any kind, which is not something we want to label any court with, let alone the highest court in the land. Historically, the number of times SCOTUS justices have recused themselves is extremely small.
...we don't want to but the standards have changed and much of today's SCOTUS court is brought up rom the junior varsity. :(

They've already lost their legitimacy in the court of public opinion :coffee:
:lol:

No, that's just you and the other Karens inside the loony echo chamber in which you live.
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59305
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by kalm »

Winterborn wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 5:11 pm
UNI88 wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:50 am

My personal opinion is that Thomas should recuse himself from January 6 issues but it's definitely debatable.

If they wanted the language to show that it wasn't discretionary, they would have used "must" or even "will" rather than "shall". "Shall" isn't as definitive as the author thinks it is.
Tiny bit of background since you touched on something that will probably never come up in conversation again, and that is the the "strength" of certain words. :ugeek:

In my line of work (ISO standards and product liability), "shall" has the strength and meaning of "must" or "will". Twelve of us spent a half hour deciding whether or not one should use "shall" or "should" in different sections of a 20 page standard. Shall is interpreted as a must comply, should is interpreted as something that is not quite a shall and you have a bit of wiggle room. Shall does not have that wiggle room.

That said I both agree and disagree with the article that was linked earlier (LA Times), the usage of shall is correct but any judge or justice is to make that decision themself and in the case of lower courts, if there is evidence of misconduct, the case goes to a higher court. But since there is no higher court than the SC, which is why this topic is being turned into something that it is not (at least at this time with what we know).

There are clear guidelines and rules for the SC to follow (and all other courts) set forth, both by Congress and the States. The truth of the matter is that Judges and Justices are given wide latitude in this area and it has been that way since the beginning. Most often recently, judges and justices recuse themselves due to stock ownership.

A quote by Justice Jackson (1953) said of the Supreme Court "if there were a super-Supreme Court, a substantial proportion of our reversals of state courts would … be reversed. We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
I’ll side with Lawrence Tribe in this instance but that’s an informative post WB, thank you.

Since the importance of the court’s reputation is up to the judge as the “final…” I think the bar is raised. ANY serious questions of impropriety (clearly the case here) should be dealt with and/removed. I successfully had a judge recused based simply on prior contact and familiarity with the case before he became judge. It wasn’t an obvious conflict but enough to create some doubt as to fair treatment.

Judges are human.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19955
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by UNI88 »

kalm wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 7:59 am
Winterborn wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 5:11 pm
Tiny bit of background since you touched on something that will probably never come up in conversation again, and that is the the "strength" of certain words. :ugeek:

In my line of work (ISO standards and product liability), "shall" has the strength and meaning of "must" or "will". Twelve of us spent a half hour deciding whether or not one should use "shall" or "should" in different sections of a 20 page standard. Shall is interpreted as a must comply, should is interpreted as something that is not quite a shall and you have a bit of wiggle room. Shall does not have that wiggle room.

That said I both agree and disagree with the article that was linked earlier (LA Times), the usage of shall is correct but any judge or justice is to make that decision themself and in the case of lower courts, if there is evidence of misconduct, the case goes to a higher court. But since there is no higher court than the SC, which is why this topic is being turned into something that it is not (at least at this time with what we know).

There are clear guidelines and rules for the SC to follow (and all other courts) set forth, both by Congress and the States. The truth of the matter is that Judges and Justices are given wide latitude in this area and it has been that way since the beginning. Most often recently, judges and justices recuse themselves due to stock ownership.

A quote by Justice Jackson (1953) said of the Supreme Court "if there were a super-Supreme Court, a substantial proportion of our reversals of state courts would … be reversed. We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
I’ll side with Lawrence Tribe in this instance but that’s an informative post WB, thank you.

Since the importance of the court’s reputation is up to the judge as the “final…” I think the bar is raised. ANY serious questions of impropriety (clearly the case here) should be dealt with and/removed. I successfully had a judge recused based simply on prior contact and familiarity with the case before he became judge. It wasn’t an obvious conflict but enough to create some doubt as to fair treatment.

Judges are human.
Why do you have a bee in your bonnet over this one? It's just one of many instances of a potential conflict of interest.

Recent Times in Which a Justice Failed to Recuse Despite a Conflict of Interests

FTR - I have no idea how accurate Fix the Court is but this is what I found with a quick search for SCOTUS conflicts of interest.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by Ibanez »

SeattleGriz wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 7:16 am
Ibanez wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:10 am
When you work in government and start deleting records from government devices - you’re making a huge mistake and a calculated risk that you’ll get away with it. I don’t care who you are - you’re hiding something when you deliberately destroy and/or hide communications.
You mean just like Mueller and his team of attorneys did, but no one cared? By the way, haven't seen you around in a while. Welcome back.
I’m not back. :)
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18038
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by GannonFan »

GannonFan wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 12:54 pm
kalm wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 12:28 pm

Looks at Ginnie’s texts and emails…shakes his head. This is cut and dry. His wife, her statements, conspiracy. Of course he should recuse himself if for no other reason than an abundance of respect for the court’s reputation as an institution.
Considering her background, and considering what people are asking, he'd have to recuse himself on virtually every hot button item of the day. There are political sides to the vast majority of cases that come to the Court, and with her being a political activist for well on 40 years now, she figures in many of them. If he's no good to do any case that touches on Jan 6th (and again, I don't know of any specific thing tying her to Graham in this specific case other than the topic), how about abortion cases? How about any cases dealing with gerrymandering? How about cases dealing with capital punishment? How about cases dealing with affirmative action? Her career is so long now surely she's advocated for positions that place their dinner table conversations on any of these topics clearly in question.

Like I said, in this specific case, he's done nothing yet that ventures into the category of "cut and dry". He's temporarily delayed Graham's testimony until the issue of the speech and debate clause can be settled. That's not controversial or differing from past Court precedents. If he goes further, or if he doesn't fall back onto the full Court to settle the matter if it keeps getting pushed up then there's a story. We seem to want to write the story before it even happens.
And just like that, the Republic is saved yet again. SCOTUS just ruled that Graham has to testify under the conditions established by the lower courts (there are some questions that are off limits). No note of any dissents. Phew, almost lost the country again. :coffee:
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59305
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by kalm »

GannonFan wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 12:07 pm
GannonFan wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 12:54 pm

Considering her background, and considering what people are asking, he'd have to recuse himself on virtually every hot button item of the day. There are political sides to the vast majority of cases that come to the Court, and with her being a political activist for well on 40 years now, she figures in many of them. If he's no good to do any case that touches on Jan 6th (and again, I don't know of any specific thing tying her to Graham in this specific case other than the topic), how about abortion cases? How about any cases dealing with gerrymandering? How about cases dealing with capital punishment? How about cases dealing with affirmative action? Her career is so long now surely she's advocated for positions that place their dinner table conversations on any of these topics clearly in question.

Like I said, in this specific case, he's done nothing yet that ventures into the category of "cut and dry". He's temporarily delayed Graham's testimony until the issue of the speech and debate clause can be settled. That's not controversial or differing from past Court precedents. If he goes further, or if he doesn't fall back onto the full Court to settle the matter if it keeps getting pushed up then there's a story. We seem to want to write the story before it even happens.
And just like that, the Republic is saved yet again. SCOTUS just ruled that Graham has to testify under the conditions established by the lower courts (there are some questions that are off limits). No note of any dissents. Phew, almost lost the country again. :coffee:
It buys time which can be valuable.

And he still should have recused himself…back in 2020 too as Trump was on his way to losing 60 court cases.

This really isn’t that hard. Do the right thing, regardless.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18038
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by GannonFan »

kalm wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 3:32 pm
GannonFan wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 12:07 pm

And just like that, the Republic is saved yet again. SCOTUS just ruled that Graham has to testify under the conditions established by the lower courts (there are some questions that are off limits). No note of any dissents. Phew, almost lost the country again. :coffee:
It buys time which can be valuable.

And he still should have recused himself…back in 2020 too as Trump was on his way to losing 60 court cases.

This really isn’t that hard. Do the right thing, regardless.
Slippery slope. Calls for recusals on every case will just be ratcheted up 1000% as people perceive they can move the Court into favorable configurations if they can only just get certain justices to recuse themselves. Nothing bad happened here at all on this intervention - there was a legitimate point raised regarding Graham's testimony, the point was answered, and we move on. Buys time? Come on, that's weak. Court proceedings aren't ever sprints nor should they be. Get it done but get it done correctly. Admit it, things worked just as they should here.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59305
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by kalm »

GannonFan wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 6:15 am
kalm wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 3:32 pm

It buys time which can be valuable.

And he still should have recused himself…back in 2020 too as Trump was on his way to losing 60 court cases.

This really isn’t that hard. Do the right thing, regardless.
Slippery slope. Calls for recusals on every case will just be ratcheted up 1000% as people perceive they can move the Court into favorable configurations if they can only just get certain justices to recuse themselves. Nothing bad happened here at all on this intervention - there was a legitimate point raised regarding Graham's testimony, the point was answered, and we move on. Buys time? Come on, that's weak. Court proceedings aren't ever sprints nor should they be. Get it done but get it done correctly. Admit it, things worked just as they should here.
You’re making excuses out of fear (slippery slope) against doing what’s right. And yes delay is a time honored legal tactic. Doesn’t make it right or just.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18038
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by GannonFan »

kalm wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 6:58 am
GannonFan wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 6:15 am

Slippery slope. Calls for recusals on every case will just be ratcheted up 1000% as people perceive they can move the Court into favorable configurations if they can only just get certain justices to recuse themselves. Nothing bad happened here at all on this intervention - there was a legitimate point raised regarding Graham's testimony, the point was answered, and we move on. Buys time? Come on, that's weak. Court proceedings aren't ever sprints nor should they be. Get it done but get it done correctly. Admit it, things worked just as they should here.
You’re making excuses out of fear (slippery slope) against doing what’s right. And yes delay is a time honored legal tactic. Doesn’t make it right or just.
When it's justified fear, sure. Again, Clarence Thomas isn't accused of doing anything untoward or bad or whatever. His wife is. And even that the most she's accused of is sending off incendiary emails and tweets. She's already been interviewed by the Jan 6th committee and nothing came of that so if there was anything else there we'd already know about it. It is a very slippery slope when we start injecting politics into SCOTUS decisions and recusals as the other time honored legal tactic is court shopping, which at the SCOTUS level you could only do by forcing recusals of the judges you don't want hearing your case. Again, Thomas hasn't blocked or caused any case to fail to progress at this point. Even this case we're talking about now ended up being a delay of maybe a week and we got to the outcome everyone agrees we should be at. Until it's proven that he's blocking things that he shouldn't be blocking (note, no one is even saying that) then I'm in favor of justices deciding when and if they recuse themselves, at the SCOTUS level.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59305
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by kalm »

GannonFan wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 7:20 am
kalm wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 6:58 am

You’re making excuses out of fear (slippery slope) against doing what’s right. And yes delay is a time honored legal tactic. Doesn’t make it right or just.
When it's justified fear, sure. Again, Clarence Thomas isn't accused of doing anything untoward or bad or whatever. His wife is. And even that the most she's accused of is sending off incendiary emails and tweets. She's already been interviewed by the Jan 6th committee and nothing came of that so if there was anything else there we'd already know about it. It is a very slippery slope when we start injecting politics into SCOTUS decisions and recusals as the other time honored legal tactic is court shopping, which at the SCOTUS level you could only do by forcing recusals of the judges you don't want hearing your case. Again, Thomas hasn't blocked or caused any case to fail to progress at this point. Even this case we're talking about now ended up being a delay of maybe a week and we got to the outcome everyone agrees we should be at. Until it's proven that he's blocking things that he shouldn't be blocking (note, no one is even saying that) then I'm in favor of justices deciding when and if they recuse themselves, at the SCOTUS level.


Image
Image
Image
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18038
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by GannonFan »

kalm wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:34 am
GannonFan wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 7:20 am

When it's justified fear, sure. Again, Clarence Thomas isn't accused of doing anything untoward or bad or whatever. His wife is. And even that the most she's accused of is sending off incendiary emails and tweets. She's already been interviewed by the Jan 6th committee and nothing came of that so if there was anything else there we'd already know about it. It is a very slippery slope when we start injecting politics into SCOTUS decisions and recusals as the other time honored legal tactic is court shopping, which at the SCOTUS level you could only do by forcing recusals of the judges you don't want hearing your case. Again, Thomas hasn't blocked or caused any case to fail to progress at this point. Even this case we're talking about now ended up being a delay of maybe a week and we got to the outcome everyone agrees we should be at. Until it's proven that he's blocking things that he shouldn't be blocking (note, no one is even saying that) then I'm in favor of justices deciding when and if they recuse themselves, at the SCOTUS level.


Still nothing. No emails from Clarence Thomas, no indication that he would've done anything unilaterally. Everything was still going through the full Court, just like with this Graham case. You're so desperate to show that there was this cabal that included Clarence Thomas that you forgot to actually include Clarence Thomas. The Republic is fine, despite your attempts to show it at the razor's edge.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59305
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by kalm »

GannonFan wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 12:06 pm
kalm wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:34 am



Still nothing. No emails from Clarence Thomas, no indication that he would've done anything unilaterally. Everything was still going through the full Court, just like with this Graham case. You're so desperate to show that there was this cabal that included Clarence Thomas that you forgot to actually include Clarence Thomas. The Republic is fine, despite your attempts to show it at the razor's edge.
Good god I’d hope he wasn’t dumb enough to email regarding this lol.

Were talking about his choice to not recuse himself not criminal prosecution. His wife was actively involved in a conspiracy to over-turn legal elections. That alone should be reason for him to recuse himself from all pertinent cases.

Rule of law and legitimacy of the court be damned I guess.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18038
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by GannonFan »

kalm wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 1:54 pm
GannonFan wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 12:06 pm

Still nothing. No emails from Clarence Thomas, no indication that he would've done anything unilaterally. Everything was still going through the full Court, just like with this Graham case. You're so desperate to show that there was this cabal that included Clarence Thomas that you forgot to actually include Clarence Thomas. The Republic is fine, despite your attempts to show it at the razor's edge.
Good god I’d hope he wasn’t dumb enough to email regarding this lol.

Were talking about his choice to not recuse himself not criminal prosecution. His wife was actively involved in a conspiracy to over-turn legal elections. That alone should be reason for him to recuse himself from all pertinent cases.

Rule of law and legitimacy of the court be damned I guess.
What has he done to show that he's not capable of rendering an objective opinion? You keep steering clear of that because you don't have anything to show that. People shape cases for specific justices, literally, all the time. Heck, one of John Grisham's best novels ("The Pelican Brief") is literally just about that. Again, show me that Clarence Thomas can't rule objectively and you have an argument. Until then you're fear-mongering, which I thought you were better than.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23236
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by houndawg »

kalm wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 12:28 pm
GannonFan wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 10:47 am

But the specifics here, for what he's done here, are often missed in the clamor over trying to score political points and web clicks. Lindsey Graham is being asked to testify before a grand jury on a phone call he had with the Georgia Secretary of State. Maybe his conversation is covered by the speech and debate clause, maybe it isn't. But that hasn't really been decided yet and needs to be decided. Thomas has delayed Graham having to sit for the grand jury until that's decided. And if it comes to the SCOTUS to actually decide that, it will likely be the full court, and not just Thomas, making that judgment. Nothing about Ginnie Thomas has been directly connected to Graham or this phone call in question. If it was her phone call or if she was in the room with Graham before/during/after the phone call, then yes, recusal would be a different story entirely. Let's see where this goes before we start the impeachment process against Thomas.
Looks at Ginnie’s texts and emails…shakes his head. This is cut and dry. His wife, her statements, conspiracy. Of course he should recuse himself if for no other reason than an abundance of respect for the court’s reputation as an institution.
Too late :ohno:
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
User avatar
bobbythekidd
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:58 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern
A.K.A.: Bob dammit!!
Location: Savannah GA

Re: January 6 - How much do you care?

Post by bobbythekidd »

Jan 6 committee recommends criminal referrals to DOJ for Donald J Trump.
Post Reply