489

House Democrats urge Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from Trump Colorado ballot case (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

(page 2) 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 2 points 10 months ago

The only threat he might consider is one of losing his access to YouPorn.

[-] books@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Can I hear an argument from the other side because I clearly don't understand how this argument isnt sound and isn't being screamed by every talking head on TV, news, op ed, etc.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Pretty solid indicator he’s going to keep trump on the ballot.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

If he doesn’t recuse himself he needs to be impeached for it as well. He’s blatantly and openly in cahoots

[-] root_beer@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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]

[-] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I feel it too

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 10 months ago

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."

[-] Skkorm@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago

Wouldn't it be better for Trump to lose the next election while on every state ballot?

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

No. He already did that. I’m afraid of trump yes, but I’m more afraid of people who see his lack of consequences and get ideas. An attempted coup needs consequences. It’s a crime with no possible motivation beyond greed, ego, and lust for power. And it’s a crime that others will attempt if he doesn’t face consequences, and specifically legal ones. Political consequences are fickle and explaining them away is easy.

[+] oxjox@lemmy.ml -11 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Judges used to have a higher standard than “I think I can be impartial”. They used to be expected to recuse if there was any potential conflict of interest, whether or not it would actually impact them.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024

489 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19104 readers

2019 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News