Dan Rather on Ginni Thomas:

[tblue37]

Link to tweet

Text

The Ginni Thomas story is not going away. It’s like peeling back the layers of a rotten onion.

[BigmanPigman]

1. Why didn't the founding fathers

do checks and balances with the SCOTUS? They govern themselves...what a ridiculous idea. I don't see Roberts helping out and Clarence won't recuse himself in a million years, he is a stubborn, self righteous, egotistical ass. Our democracy is being flushed down the toilet before our eyes.

[The Revolution]

3. I think the check

is supposed to be that the Senate needs to approve them and Congress can impeach them. The founders however failed to anticipate the emergence of a party that would be hostile to the Constitution itself, which puts its own desires ahead of the wellbeing and stability of the Republic.

[Novara]

12. Ding ding ding!

We have a winner!

"The founders however failed to anticipate the emergence of a party that would be hostile to the Constitution itself"

The country adopted some good safeguards after Nixon but even then they didn't see the existential threat to the country the GOP would become.

[Cheezoholic]

6. SCOTUS can neither create or enforce law

That is the check. They are there to interpret law as it applies to the Constitution. They are there to provide a check on any law passed in the country, local to federal, if that law violates the Constitution. They cant enforce any law and they can't create any law. The fact the other 2 branches must agree on who sits on the court is the balance. The power of the court was meant to protect constitutional rights. Any decision on any law by the court can be challenged simply by passing another law challenging the high courts ruling. This method is exactly how something like Citizens un-united got upheld and is exactly how Roe could potentially be overturned. I personally have only 1 issue with the founders and SCOTUS and that is the lifetime appointment. While education and experience was something, I believe, that held weight in the 18th century, the "speed" of society in the modern era, imo, necessitates term limits on justices. SCOTUS is the only part of our system of governance where lifetime appointments are guaranteed. I believe that needs to change. While I understand the founders original reasoning I believe it has become a major impediment to the fluidity of the democratic republic the founders intended.

[BigmanPigman]

7. Getting rid of lifetime appointments would be a great start!

[Captain Zero]

8. But this is a 'gaming' of two Supreme Ct. 'options'

1. The court can decline to hear a case.
2. The court can agree to hear a case, and sets aside a lower court ruling and needs 'time'.

How has it been gamed?
Obviously Thomas is corrupted.
Probably Alioto is corrupted into these two methods.
Possibly Kavanaugh and Barret.
The way it works is the back channel from Trump that tells them what to decline to hear or what to agree to hear. This either removes the time barrier or puts in a time delay for trump to work other levers.

Something like this is how I understand it.

[DFW]

9. I can only guess

They never imagined a Senate full of ignorant/incompetent/corrupt members from many low-population states voting to confirm justices on a basis of extremist ideology, rather than legal scholarship. They probably assumed that needing Senate confirmation WAS a safeguard against extremist ideologues reaching that lofty bench. To the founding fathers, the notion of a Clarence Thomas, a Sam Alito, or an Amy Phony Carrot was already precluded by the high level of education and awareness of the members of the Senate and the president. Presidents like W or tfg, and Senators like Tommy Tuberville or Marsha Blackburn were impossibilities to their way of thinking.

[dalton99a]

2. Kick

[Rhiannon12866]

4. Twitter reply:

Link to tweet

[SergeStorms]

5. That rotten onion stench....

is emanating from the Thomas house. It shouldn't be difficult to locate.

[calimary]

10. Dan Rather would know.

He’s always had a keen nose for news.

[Hortensis]

13. :) And likely experience with it inspired his choice of revolting simile.

[EndlessWire]

11. It appears that Ginni Thomas was/is active

during the coup attempt. What business does the wife of a SC justice have with Trump's attorney?

She'll never testify to the J6 Committee. Here's hoping that they have the GUTS to subpoena a SC Justice's wife to the proceedings, and see if she 1) shows up; or 2) squeals and seeks legal justification to avoid the testimony. Clarence will probably give her advice, dontcha think?

Is there a deadline for her to show up? This is damned interesting. Is there a bingo card somewhere?

[rubbersole]

15. Advice not worth taking.

Ginni wears the pants in that relationship. This story will go on all summer. Popcorn 🍿!

[Kid Berwyn]

14. "Rotten Onions"

[Cha]

16. Thank You, Dan Rather!

💙💛