352
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, 75, sparked raised eyebrows over his whereabouts when he was absent during oral arguments on Monday, and the Court provided no explanation.

Chief Justice John Roberts addressed Thomas' lack of presence, according to NBC News' Lawrence Hurley, saying that Thomas "is not on the bench today" but would "participate fully" in the two cases being argued based on the briefs and transcripts.

"Context that may or may not be helpful: In the recent past, Justice Thomas phoned into oral arguments when he couldn't attend in person, allowing him to ask questions remotely. He isn't doing so this time," wrote Slate reporter Mark Joseph Stern on X, formerly Twitter.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 2 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


"Context that may or may not be helpful: In the recent past, Justice Thomas phoned into oral arguments when he couldn't attend in person, allowing him to ask questions remotely.

His time on the Court has drawn plenty of ridicule, notably in recent years following an April 2023 report by ProPublica that found that he had accepted luxury trips almost annually for more than two decades as the beneficiary of Dallas businessman and Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow and never disclosed them.

Last October, the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee moved to subpoena Crow and other donors, calling it part of a wide-ranging ethics crisis.

Crow told Newsweek via email at the time that any such subpoena would be "nothing more than a stunt aimed at undermining Justice Thomas, but his office would "remain committed to respectful cooperation and a fair resolution."

Thomas received more grief last month after participating in the Supreme Court's decision to put presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump back on primary ballots in multiple states after he was removed in accordance to Section 3 of the Constitution, which bars former officeholders who "engaged in insurrection" from holding office again.

The justice was encouraged by many to recuse himself based on the ruling and ties with his own wife, whose actions surrounding the last presidential election have been put in the spotlight.


The original article contains 515 words, the summary contains 224 words. Saved 57%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
352 points (98.9% liked)

politics

18072 readers
3017 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS