389
Clarence Thomas must recuse himself from ruling on Trump’s 2024 eligibility, Raskin says
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
389 points (97.6% liked)
News
23617 readers
3859 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Would this ruling in any way affect his wife? She hadn't sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, nor is she running for office. So how exactly is she relevant to a case about the 14th amendment?
Love how the cons are all "how does his wife matter, she isn't in the one who's the judge?" but also "impeach Biden because of what his son did and the honour of the office!"
"But also don't look too deeply into Jared and Ivanka and what they did while working at the White House for Ivanka's father."
There's an amazing alternate timeline somewhere where Jared Kushner and Hunter Biden are cellmates in a Federal Prison somewhere, and nobody can question whether the DOJ is politicized because folks from both sides frequently go to jail when they commit crimes.
Please don't put words in my mouth, or assume that I'm a conservative. Personally, I don't see how a president could be impeached for something he did as a Vice President, no matter what past transgressions the Republicans end up finding related to Hunter Biden.
I wasn't suggesting that Clarence Thomas not recuse himself because his wife wasn't the judge, I just didn't understand how her involvement in the insurrection had anything to do with a court case about interpreting the 14th amendment. And I've changed my mind on the recusal question after reading some of the good faith replies folks were nice enough to post.
She had direct involvement in the events of that day and is thus related to the case, so there is a conflict of interest for Clarence Thomas. It doesn't matter if she is part of the trial itself, that's not what determines a conflict of interest. The Justice has a personal connection to the case.
For a hypothetical to compare... Would it be okay if on a case involving say Hunter's laptop, the spouse of a Biden family friend were the judge for the case? The judge may not directly part of the Biden family, and may not be directly related to the events, but they clearly have a conflict of interest.
A conflict of interest doesn't mean that you're directly involved, it means that you have a connection to the case that could be seen as having a bias outside normal court procedures.
Fair enough, you convinced me. I was originally only thinking of this as a limited case regarding the 14th amendment. But if the supreme Court rules against Trump in this case, they'd be ruling that there was an insurrection, which could open his wife up to legal liability on that front. Based on that new understanding, I'd agree that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself.
No, because Hunter's laptop is Russian propaganda. He said so himself. Republicans are just jealous because Hunter is the smartest guy Joe knows.
She is relevant to any case that her husband presides over in which she is personallying implicated in direct involvement. A ton of evidence suggests she is very active in conservative politics and that her views have influenced court rulings by her husband.Their relationship by definition means Thomas has a conflict of interest and shouldn't be hearing any cases, about then14th amendment or anything else.
A few sources https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60871794
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/27/1076097533/how-ginni-thomas-wife-of-justice-clarence-thomas-influences-the-supreme-court
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-21/trump-immunity-claim-at-supreme-court-puts-clarence-thomas-under-pressure
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-was-clarence-thomas-lone-dissenter-trump-jan-6-documents-1716895