489
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 88 points 8 months ago

“I could recuse myself to help settle down the corruption cases building against me…. Naaaa, I’m a fucking Supreme Court justice, I AM the law”

[-] xor@sh.itjust.works 16 points 8 months ago

i feel like there's a good Judge Dredd photoshop waiting to happen here...

[-] shikitohno@kbin.social 10 points 8 months ago

If you could offer enough money, you could probably get him to show up to hear cases dressed liked Judge Dredd.

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 10 points 8 months ago

That would be a bribe and Justice Clarence Thomas has proved time and time again that he's never accepted a bribe!

He'll accept a gift, though. If you buy him, like, 300 Judge Dredd costumes and a couple for his mom, then it would just be bad manners not to wear them, right?

[-] xor@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

maybe just a yacht would do it...

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

And I'm here to remind you

Of the mess you made when you killed Roe v Wade

It's not fair, don't deny it!

The bribes you bear you say they gave away

You- you... Yacht ta know!

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 9 points 8 months ago
[-] xor@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago

well, at least AI is good for something

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 4 points 8 months ago

I mean, given that Roberts is scared of AI, and I'm not wasting more on Clarence than the four minutes it took to generate this, it seemed appropriate.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Why is he scared of AI, did the Pope say something about it?

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 4 points 8 months ago

Because AI is coming for all of our jobs! Fear, fear for your lives!

~~It's the usual conservative reactionary impetus.~~

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 59 points 8 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 58 points 8 months ago

we are well beyond anyone in the SC recusing themselves for any reason. these dems are smokin the reefer

[-] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago

I get that they want to be on record pressuring him to recuse himself from the trial but I agree, this seems like a waste of breath.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 49 points 8 months ago

Urging Clarence Thomas to behave ethically is like urging an oil tycoon to put the lives and health of people over profits.

Neither is ever going to happen unless you force them to.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 30 points 8 months ago

Is his wife facing charges for being a leader of the movement that led to Jan 6th?

[-] Human@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 8 months ago

I swear the finger-wagging will work this time! Come on everyone, behave and follow the rules! /s

Seriously though, when will Dems key into the fact that the right doesn't give a fuck about rules or institution? They've been doing obstructionist politics since Obama. They are obviously not interested in playing fair or governing effectively.

So, at what point do Dems become complicit?...

*I am not saying; don't vote blue. Im saying we have to demand more from those who we elect before it is too late.

Its almost too late.

[-] CurbsTickle@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

I'd say when they have an actual majority to push meaningful legislation to address this and don't. I can't think of a time since the first 2 years Obama was in office (and prior to that, they were obstructionists but nowhere near the behavior you see now) this was the case.

So I don't think there has been an opportunity to actually address it with a dem majority. Republicans had the house right up from Obama's third year until Trumps 3rd year, and the Senate has been Republican dominated for about the same.

Do you expect Republicans to pass a law that stops Republicans from being obstructionists?

I don't.

[-] Human@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 months ago

You missed the greater point, in exactly the same way Dems do. I will try to put it a better way:

Your thinking and planning is constrained by rules. Their thinking and planning is not. You play fair, while they cheat. This is a losing strategy.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dhork@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

"Who put this pubic hair in my Supreme Court?"

[-] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

He will if Dems pay him enough.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 10 points 8 months ago

How about they stop "urging" the enemy to stop doing something, and instead of being feckless whiners, actually put on their big-boy pants and MAKE THEM!

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

Often, the only way to make them is to change the law, and that can't be done without the consent of their corrupt allies in the Legislative Branch.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Great sentiment, but how would they do that? House Democrats don't really have any power

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The problem is house democrats arent using speech to tell him. Loads and loads of $peech.

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

I'll take Things That Won't Happen for 200, Alex

[-] NotBillMurray@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

"No" -Clarence Thomas

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 8 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


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.

“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,” the lawmakers wrote.

“It is unthinkable that you could be impartial in deciding whether an event your wife personally organized qualifies as an ‘insurrection’ that would prevent someone from holding the office of President.”

Democratic Reps. Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania, Glenn Ivey of Maryland, Gerald Connolly of Virginia, Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Dan Goldman of New York also signed the letter.

But Thomas continues to face scrutiny for refusing to recuse himself from several other Jan. 6-related cases, including one involving whether Trump has presidential immunity from federal prosecution.

The Supreme Court last month denied special counsel Jack Smith’s request to step in ahead of the normal appeals process.


The original article contains 533 words, the summary contains 220 words. Saved 59%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 months ago

Narrator: He didn’t.

[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Could we start a go fund me so we could pay him to vote in favor of democracy?

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 8 months ago

just give him a new pillow and he'll just fall asleep through it. if you tell him it costs a thousand dollars, he'll happily accept it.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
489 points (98.2% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3735 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! 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.
  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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS