General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRoberts knows NOW that Thomas had a conflict of interest in regards to his wifes J6 actions
Last edited Fri Mar 25, 2022, 03:05 PM - Edit history (2)
Thomas was the sole decent on releasing records regarding his wife's wanting to take down the US government.
Roberts knows NOW and should indicated something in regards to the courts integrity and impartiality.
This is bad, its a bad look on the USSC and Americans deserve some kind of explanation.
EDITED To include Ginnis actions and not just text and to give Roberts the benefit of the doubt he didn't know what was in the text because that's not what they were asked to judge on.
Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)...to know anything about the evil, unethical shit they do.
Response to uponit7771 (Original post)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
imaginary girl
(861 posts)Just because the phone is registered to Ginny doesn't mean she's got some control of it. Was it cover? This angle should at least be investigated, imo.
2naSalit
(86,577 posts)Helping to strategize a way through legal processes to get the case to SCOTUS so they could deal with it, again. Shit, it worked for W...
So, yeah, using Ginny's phone at times, could be cover but also she must have consulted with him on a number of angles in her little crusade.
I can't imagine being married to someone and know nothing about their activities.
GoodRaisin
(8,922 posts)My guess is that he was just as involved as she was. Its making the integrity of the Court look horrible. Its an easy reach to conclude that our Supreme Court is rife with corruption.
Roberts needs to go talk to Thomas and ask him to resign for the sake of the institution and in restoring the peoples confidence. Unfortunately there is such degree of Republican partisanship over control of the court it wont happen. If this had happened when Republicans held the Senate and White House so they could pick a successor he probably would had been pressured into resigning.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)And did they too not say anything?
Or did Roberts have access to some part of the record that the other justices didn't?
stopdiggin
(11,301 posts)Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)The Supreme Court did not have Meadow's communications before them. The argument was about whether he should be required to release them. None of the proceedings on that issue would have involved anyone producing the communications in question because that would of course be stupid.
stopdiggin
(11,301 posts)even if Robert was privy to some knowledge (or personal convictions) regarding the issue - does that mean he could have prevented Thomas from casting the same vote? Of course not!
As an independent justice, Thomas can be just as callous about issues of integrity and ethics as he chooses to!
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)I want to know about the cell phone plan with the "read your wife's texts" feature.
I have AT&T and I have no idea what my wife's texts are.
Is the ability to read your wife's texts a Verizon thing?
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)You mean during a case under consideration by the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice is provided with special access to information about the case that none of the other justices have?
Or are you saying that Kagan and Sotomayor could have said something, but decided not to?
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)But as Chief Justice, he manages the operation of the Court. His opinion carries more weight.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Nor is he responsible for it, and he has no role in making any kinds of statements about it.
You know how the GQP decided they could just make up whatever silliness they believed about how the Constitution is supposed to work - leading to J6 in the first place?
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)I didn't recall a vow of silence being part of his oath of office. In fact, he seems quite happy to have opinions on many things, often jamming his own opinion through in the middle of the night in shadow docket rulings.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)But I seem to have forgotten, so perhaps you can remind me of the last time that a Chief Justice decided to make a public statement about the conduct of anyone on the court.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)I am happy to honor your request. Will you honor mine, or are you just a one-way street?
2011:
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/jan/21/scalia-thomas-accused-of-conflict-of-interest/
WASHINGTON A government watchdog group alleges that two of the Supreme Courts most conservative members had a conflict of interest when they considered a controversial case last year that permitted corporate funds to be used directly in political campaigns.
...
The letter is based in part on references to Scalia and Thomas made in an invitation to an upcoming meeting this month of elite conservative leaders sponsored by the Kochs. The invitation, first obtained by the liberal blog Think Progress, names the two justices among luminaries who have attended the closed Koch meetings at unspecified dates in the past.
2016:
https://otherwords.org/scalias-conflict-of-interest-airlines-frequent-flyer-status/
In another curiosity, the names of some 35 other people who were in Scalias hunting party are being kept secret. Moreover, the late judge an ardent promoter of corporate supremacy over peoples rights was flown to the remote getaway for free aboard someones or some corporations private jet. The name of this generous benefactor has also been withheld.
https://fixthecourt.com/2022/01/recent-times-justice-failed-recuse-despite-clear-conflict-interest/
1. OT20: Justice Kagan failed to recuse in 19-720, U.S. v. Briones, Jr., a juvenile life sentence case remanded to the Ninth Circuit on 5/3/21 in light of the Courts ruling in Jones v. Mississippi the previous month. Kagan previously participated in an earlier version of this case, 09-1044, Briones and Briones, Jr., v. U.S., when she was U.S. solicitor general. @FedJudges identified this error on Twitter, and FTC e-mailed the SCOTUS clerk on 5/6/21. That afternoon, the Court noted the error in a letter to the 19-720 litigants.
2. OT20: Justice Barrett failed to recuse, or failed to note her disqualification, in 20A150, an application in a Trump-era public charge rule case, Texas, et al., v. Cook County, et al., that was denied on 4/26/21. The non-recusal seemed odd given that Barrett twice participated in a Seventh Circuit version of this case. With help from three SCOTUS reporters, FTC was able to bring this error to the attention of the SCOTUS clerks office on 4/27/21, and that afternoon, the Court noted the error (p. 2) that, in fact, Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.
3. OT20: Americans for Prosperity spent more than $1 million to get Justice Barrett confirmed, and Barrett did not recuse from 19-251, Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, argued on 4/26/21. FTC did not take further action on this, save writing an op-ed.
4. OT20: Justice Alito failed to recuse in 20-6256, Valentine v. PNC Financial Services, et al., where one of the al. was PNC Bank, whose shares we think Alito owns, though his 2021 disclosure has yet to be released. Missed recusal on 1/11/21 (cert. denied); reported 2/4/21; no further action taken.
5. OT19: Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Gorsuch have book deals with Penguin Random House, with all three earning big bucks from these contracts. In 2019, PRH was a respondent in a copyright infringement suit at SCOTUS, 19-560, Nicassio v. Viacom International and Penguin Random House, and only Breyer recused, though not because of his writing but because at the time, his wifes familys publishing company, Pearson, owned a large stake in PRH. Though the financial interest language in the federal recusal statute is typically interpreted to mean stocks, all three and now Justice Barrett, who has her own PRH book deal should recuse. Missed recusal on 12/9/19 (cert. denied); rehearing denied 2/24/20. FTC identified these conflicts in its July 2020 recusal report, but no further action was taken.
6. OT18: Justices Breyer and Alito failed to recuse in 18-6644, Feng v. Komenda and Rockwell Collins, Inc., though each own shares in Rockwells parent company, United Technologies Corp.; missed recusal on 1/14/19 (cert. denied). FTC identified this conflict on 4/8/19, two and a half months after cert. was denied, and the Supreme Court responded that afternoon, saying that the justices would have had no way to know about the conflict since the company in question waived the right to respond. FTC finds that reasoning spurious.
7. OT18: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito and Sotomayor failed to recuse in 18-5810, Rivera v. U.S., even though they were named in the petition by the appellant. As above, the justices would probably claim that there was no way of knowing they were named since the U.S. failed to file a response, but again, FTC finds that reasoning spurious, especially since Justice Kagan recused in the case twice. (The first Justice Kavanaugh recusal noted on the docket was a blanket one for all Oct. 9 orders due to his Oct. 6 confirmation.) Missed recusal on 10/9/18, and again for the rehearing petition, 1/14/19 (cert. denied both times); no further action taken.
8. OT17: Chief Justice Roberts failed to recuse in 17-1287, Marcus Roberts et al. v. AT&T Mobility, despite owning shares in Time-Warner, which had merged with AT&T four days prior (likely a SCOTUS conference day); missed recusal on 6/18/18 (cert. denied). FTC identified this conflict five months after cert. was denied, and no further action was taken.
9. OT17: Justice Kennedy failed to recuse in 17-269, Washington v. U.S., despite his previous work on the case; missed recusal on 1/2/18 (cert. granted); reported by SCOTUS and recused on 3/23/18.
10. OT16 and OT17: Justice Kagan failed to recuse in 151204, Jennings v. Rodriguez, despite her previous work on the case; missed recusal on 11/30/16 (argued) and 10/3/17 (reargued); reported and recused on 11/10/17.
11. OT16: Justice Alito failed to recuse in 17-290, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, despite owning shares in Merck; missed recusal on 6/27/17 (application to extend the time to file); reported and recused on 9/22/17 (and then unrecused 10/26/18 after he sold his shares).
12. OT16: Chief Justice Roberts failed to recuse in 14-1538, Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., despite owning shares in Thermo Fisher Scientific, which owns Life Technologies; missed recusal on 12/6/16 (argued); reported and recused on 1/4/17.
13. OT15: Justice Breyer failed to recuse in o. 14840, FERC v. EPSA, despite owning shares in Johnson Controls, a party on the EPSA side; missed recusal on 10/14/15 (argued), reported and remained on case on 10/15/15. Breyer did not recuse at first, learned about the conflict the day after oral argument in FERC v. EPSA and then sold his stock or his wife did that day.
14. OT15: Chief Justice Roberts failed to recuse in 14-972, ABB Inc., et al. v. Arizona Board of Regents, et al., despite owning shares in Texas Instruments stock, a party on the ABB side; missed recusal on 10/5/15 (cert. denied), reported on 12/18/15. FTC identified this conflict two months after cert. was denied and brought it to the chiefs attention. No further action was taken.
-----------------------
Now please answer my question.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)I'm still waiting for my answer.
I asked Lagomorph a question. Instead of an answer, I got a question. I answered that question, but still have not got an answer to mine.
I think some people's idea of "fair" is kind of odd.
dem4decades
(11,286 posts)The elections? This is bullshit.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Please list all pending criminal investigations at the DoJ.
Thank you.
dem4decades
(11,286 posts)See Peter Navarro.
BTW, Michael Cohen went to jail for acts he committed in a conspiracy with Donald Trump. That Federal investigation has folded, Trump is beyond the law. And we're supposed to think DOJ is working? Yeah, working to protect fat cat Republicans. At least Barr did something, even though it was crooked, now DOJ can't even do anything.
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)But will grind Ginni exceedingly fine.
If we are, in fact, a country governed by the rule of law.
Otherwise, we might as well be Russia.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... I think she would get.
I do think Roberts needs to say something vs let this sit in the ether and fester wrong, Americans expect impartiality or at least the attempt at it and Thomas's actions does completely opposite of that.
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)And the rendering of the trial and punishment.
In a world with an ever-shortening attention span, this gap period is enough to lose the public's interest and in some cases turn the public against those seeking justice.
I can't think of another system that would be any better, but being fair also means that the cheaters prevail until the moment they don't, and all of us are left with a bitter taste in our mouths.
2naSalit
(86,577 posts)The public usually pays.
BannonsLiver
(16,370 posts)And he will remain on the court until such a time that he croaks. Could be a year from now, or 10. So Im going to go with your second option.
mackdaddy
(1,526 posts)This was openly discussed and reported that she was paying for the buses and other transportation expenses to get people to the Trump rally at least.
This could not have been a surprise to Roberts.
stopdiggin
(11,301 posts)and, surprise or not - Roberts really doesn't have any control over it. (Either Ginni, or Clarence)
JudyM
(29,233 posts)Or maybe hes confused about who his client actually is.
Also, a bit of history from his Wikipedia page:
in 2011, 74 Democratic members of the House of Representatives wrote that Justice Thomas should recuse himself on cases regarding the Affordable Care Act due to "appearance of a conflict of interest" based on his wife's work.
There is no longer even a semblance of integrity. It is time for rules to be implemented for members of the S.Ct.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)The proceeding was about whether Meadows' communications should be produced. OBVIOUSLY, Meadows' communications were not of record in that proceeding.
So, I have to know this. Does Roberts know who everyone's wife communicates with on a regular basis? Or did he specifically just know about to whom Thomas' wife sends texts?
Connect the "Roberts HAD to know" dots for me, because I want to know how he would even have known that.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... produced.
OK, lets say he knew nothing ... still America deserves some explanation of one of the sitting judges at minimum LOOKING like he's using his bench to protect a loved one vs being impartial.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)You are saying that the other side already had the evidence?
This wasn't about admissibility of evidence, where both sides know what it is. This was a dispute about obligation to produce the evidence in the first place. And, no, you don't produce the evidence in order to argue about whether to produce it.
All of the filings in the case are available online, and this was purely a legal argument over whether Meadows had a blanket claim of privilege against producing anything. This was an appellate proceeding, not a trial. They don't go over evidence in the first place. They go over the legal conclusions of the lower court.
But if you think otherwise, and that "they" had the texts, then why are you letting Kagan and Sotomayor off the hook? Did they say anything about it? No.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... didn't have the text and it was only Thomas that knew.
I'll change the OP to present those facts if I'm repeating you correctly
The American public STILL needs to hear from Roberts himself, its his court and he's the leader of it
No reasonable person is going to believe Thomas didn't know nothing about nothing in regards to his wife's J6 activity.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)"No reasonable person is going to believe Thomas didn't know..."
Okay, so, to establish that Thomas actually knew that his wife had texted Meadows in particular, no evidence is needed to prove that point.
Because, sure, I know everyone to whom my wife sends text messages.
And Roberts needs to make some kind of public pronouncement about it, the way that Chief Justices have traditionally issued public announcements about what they think of the behavior of other members of the court. Because that's somewhere in the Constitution, I'm pretty sure.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Because that's somewhere in the Constitution, I'm pretty sure.
Its no where in the constitution that Roberts shouldn't go daily humping trees in his back yard bucket naked for everyone to see either but if he did, yeah ... someone should say something.
We both understand the difference between legal and moral and appropriate for the office.
onenote
(42,700 posts)Among other things, those emails were not among the presidential records that had been requested by the Committee, that were in possession of the Archives and that were released to the Committee by the Archives shortly after the Supreme Court acted in January 2022. The Ginni Thomas emails to Meadows were delivered to the Committee by Meadows in December 2021 in response to a Committee subpoena. There is no reason for those emails to have come to the attention of the Court since they weren't among the Archives records that Trump was seeking to prevent the Committee from getting and already were in possession of the Committee.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)onenote
(42,700 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... BEING less than adequate when that façade is proffered.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Nor has he ever been.
His sole dissent on the records case is damning.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... CT to recuse himself from the whole matter.
No reasonable person is going to believe CT knew nothin about nothin
a kennedy
(29,655 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... bothsideism BS on the show too.
Segment is worth watching
a kennedy
(29,655 posts)Samrob
(4,298 posts)I'll wait...
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... and allow the view of the office to further be political than it is now.
I'd error on the side of communication than silence in this context
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)And then go back to work.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)And that is promoting expectations of them which are unlikely to occur, thus creating the impression that they are rigged or corrupt, instead of considering whether the expectation was realistic in the first place.
That also undermines the credibility of institutions.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... than something in regards to communication.