844
Clarence Thomas Under Pressure to Recuse Himself From Donald Trump Case
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
844 points (98.5% liked)
politics
19088 readers
1743 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Hmmm...any guesses if he actually will? Cause I bet there is zero chance that he does.
I can't imagine he will, nor will any of the justices appointed by Trump.
he didn't recuse himself when his wife was on the docket... so why would he recuse himself from trump?
Exactly.
Can we at least update the description of Supreme Court Justice to remove impartiality and instead say something to the effect of 'forces their will on people less fortunate?'
Also, call them judges. To call them justices perverts the entire concept.
I like the term ‘lawyer-deciders’ because what do you call a bus full of lawyers at the bottom of a lake?
A good start?
That's not really fair, though. A lot of lawyers are fighting the good fight, such as environmental lawyers, those of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ACLU and various other organizations who provide pro bono representation to those who couldn't afford a good lawyer otherwise.
Fair sir. But these ones aren’t any different from others that also are disliked. They are just as corrupt and with more power so they’re even bigger dirt bags.
May they be used as examples of scum for all time immortal.
That's like saying that all politicians are identical 🙄
Ah well. The bad apples use nuance to hide amongst the good ones which has been very effective. If they can’t self regulate then something must be done …. Apathy hasn’t really panned out 🧐
Well he’s a giant piece of shit human, so I’m going to guess no.
I don't see any chance the supreme court could rule that he would be immune to charges for attempting to steal an election. If they were to rule he had absolute immunity it would be giving every president forward who wants to stay in office the right to just cancel the elections.
That said, Clarence won't want his name listed as voting against protecting little hands in this, so him stepping aside gives him the ability to not vote against, and look like he did the right thing.
Quite clearly the Supreme Court doesn't care about national stability. So who can say what will happen. They've overturned decades of jurisprudence, so speculation is fun but we really have no idea.
They already showed how it's done in Bush v Gore: just declare the case can't be used as precedent.
The Supreme Court is operating under Calvinball rules.
That is what they want, though. They want a dictator.
They want a republican dictator. A democrat currently holds the office. If they rule that Trump can’t be held liable, there’s nothing stopping Biden from doing the same successfully. And that should terrify them.
They have no intention of letting Democrats continue to be president, though.
I'm gonna put the odds at roughly 1000:1 that he does.
Actually, there are betting sites for this that would be, supposedly, more accurate than I am at creating those odds. What are the odds on the betting sites?
Edit: I'm not finding the odds.....
Edit 2: Apparently there are 5:1 odds on if Trump takes a plea bargain. I would have set those a bit higher since he is willing to settle cases, but I doubt he's willing to accept jail time of any sort.
I can't see trump taking a plea deal while he's still running for president. He's going to try to delay as long as he can, get elected, and then use his position as president to weasel out of any charges, even if it means pardoning himself. And since he's that number 1 target, the one that they want bad enough to give lenient plea deals to others in exchange for testimony, I find it hard to believe that he'd be offered a plea that doesn't send him to prison. So why admit to being guilty when he can keep telling his followers that it's a witch hunt and generate more support?