AOC calls on Justice Thomas to resign

[pecksniff]

To the left, conflicts of interest are only useful when they can be used against their political enemies.

How else could conflicts of interest ever be useful?

 

[Rightguide]

In regard to themselves, the left is blind to conflicts of interest.

 

[icanhelp1]

Nepotism is rarely ethical.

Ethics and illegalities aren't the same thing. And saying someone is compromised without evidence is called speculation

That being said...I think i

How else could conflicts of interest ever be useful?

So, just to be clear, what you! Peck! is implying is that Hunter Biden being employed and receiving a lucrative salary from a corrupt Ukrainian company while Joe Biden ( vice president and point man for Obama in all Ukrainian issues ) who called for the firing of Viktor Shokin who was involved in an active criminal investigation of the very company Hunter Biden was an unqualified board member and you'se can't see the potential for a security risk or a conflict of interest. And yet, you see Clarence Thomas and his wife who are proud conservative americans, Clarence a supreme court justice cannot separate and rule on issues that his wife has interest in.

Biden should recuse himself from anything going on at the white house. Biden is compromised by both China and Russia.

 

[ll74]

So, just to be clear, what you! Peck! is implying is that Hunter Biden being employed and receiving a lucrative salary from a corrupt Ukrainian company while Joe Biden ( vice president and point man for Obama in all Ukrainian issues ) who called for the firing of Viktor Shokin who was involved in an active criminal investigation of the very company Hunter Biden was an unqualified board member and you'se can't see the potential for a security risk or a conflict of interest. And yet, you see Clarence Thomas and his wife who are proud conservative americans, Clarence a supreme court justice cannot separate and rule on issues that his wife has interest in.

Biden should recuse himself from anything going on at the white house. Biden is compromised by both China and Russia.

Ive already said further investigation into Hunter is warranted.

Tying the two together is problematic at worst,silly at best. I'm sure this will lead to a failed impeachment effort along with a lack of acceptance by everyone involved for our President.

I just feel like Thomas is better off politically recusing himself. I don't personally feel like his wife's views compromise anything in his opinions.

 

[pecksniff]

Biden should recuse himself from anything going on at the white house. Biden is compromised by both China and Russia.

Biden is not doing anything Putin or Xi would want him to do.

 

[icanhelp1]

Ive already said further investigation into Hunter is warranted.

Tying the two together is problematic at worst,silly at best. I'm sure this will lead to a failed impeachment effort along with a lack of acceptance by everyone involved for our President.

I just feel like Thomas is better off politically recusing himself. I don't personally feel like his wife's views compromise anything in his opinions.

I know you've mentioned should be more of an investigation on Hunter.

If Biden is impeached it should be for his dereliction of duty to secure our southern flank, failure to enforce immigration laws, actually intentionally breaking our laws, allowing millions of illegals to take residence within our country without the approval of americans citizens. He's doing irreparable damage and there is nothing we can do to stop him, Tyranny by party majority. He has no right to force his agenda on people who don't want it.

AOC, * a democrat * screaming to anyone who will listen ( and she has a large following ) is calling for Clarence Thomas to resign and yet she is mute on the compromising position and possible corruption in the Bidensphere. That's how I tie the two together. She caused a lot of turmoil at the border in 2017 with her fake emotional crying over children separated from their whoever's, and yet not a peep from her pointing out all the atrocities happening at the border today. Conflicts of interest only travel to the right and the left is always left in the clear..

 

[pecksniff]

She caused a lot of turmoil at the border in 2017 with her fake emotional crying over children separated from their whoever's, and yet not a peep from her pointing out all the atrocities happening at the border today.

There are still kids in cages, but those are the only atrocities.

 

[ll74]

I know you've mentioned should be more of an investigation on Hunter.

If Biden is impeached it should be for his dereliction of duty to secure our southern flank, failure to enforce immigration laws, actually intentionally breaking our laws, allowing millions of illegals to take residence within our country without the approval of americans citizens. He's doing irreparable damage and there is nothing we can do to stop him, Tyranny by party majority. He has no right to force his agenda on people who don't want it.

AOC, * a democrat * screaming to anyone who will listen ( and she has a large following ) is calling for Clarence Thomas to resign and yet she is mute on the compromising position and possible corruption in the Bidensphere. That's how I tie the two together. She caused a lot of turmoil at the border in 2017 with her fake emotional crying over children separated from their whoever's, and yet not a peep from her pointing out all the atrocities happening at the border today. Conflicts of interest only travel to the right and the left is always left in the clear..

Yes, I've gathered your perspective from other posts. The OP is about Thomas.

 

[YDB95]

So, just to be clear, what you! Peck! is implying is that Hunter Biden being employed and receiving a lucrative salary from a corrupt Ukrainian company while Joe Biden ( vice president and point man for Obama in all Ukrainian issues ) who called for the firing of Viktor Shokin who was involved in an active criminal investigation of the very company Hunter Biden was an unqualified board member and you'se can't see the potential for a security risk or a conflict of interest.

Since that's not even close to an accurate portrayal of what really happened, no, we can't see that. The entire Western diplomatic community wanted Shokin gone, as did plenty of Ukrainians. He was super corrupt. The worst Hunter Biden was guilty of was benefitting from nepotism, which, in light of who the last two Republican presidents were, is not a charge I take the least bit seriously coming from any right-of-center voter.

She has a constitutional right to voice her belief.

True, but what she did went well beyond that and you know it.

At the time there were inconsistencies that could possibly influence the outcome of certain swing states.

No there were not. There has never been any evidence whatsoever that the 2020 election wasn't fair.

To overturn an election does not mean overthrow the government.

A distinction without a difference in this particular case, as you know if you haven't been under a rock since last January 6.

AOC is an ignorant adolescent, she's seen as a thumb-sucking alien from outer space walking the halls of the House.

I shall pass over in silence the matter of how you would know what anything looks like from outer space, though it certainly would explain a lot.

 

[Wrong Element]

I know you've mentioned should be more of an investigation on Hunter.

If Biden is impeached it should be for his dereliction of duty to secure our southern flank, failure to enforce immigration laws, actually intentionally breaking our laws, allowing millions of illegals to take residence within our country without the approval of americans citizens. He's doing irreparable damage and there is nothing we can do to stop him, Tyranny by party majority. He has no right to force his agenda on people who don't want it.

AOC, * a democrat * screaming to anyone who will listen ( and she has a large following ) is calling for Clarence Thomas to resign and yet she is mute on the compromising position and possible corruption in the Bidensphere. That's how I tie the two together. She caused a lot of turmoil at the border in 2017 with her fake emotional crying over children separated from their whoever's, and yet not a peep from her pointing out all the atrocities happening at the border today. Conflicts of interest only travel to the right and the left is always left in the clear..

AOC wasn't really a public figure in 2017. She didn't get elected till the following year.

 

[icanhelp1]

Since that's not even close to an accurate portrayal of what really happened, no, we can't see that. The entire Western diplomatic community wanted Shokin gone, as did plenty of Ukrainians. He was super corrupt. The worst Hunter Biden was guilty of was benefitting from nepotism, which, in light of who the last two Republican presidents were, is not a charge I take the least bit seriously coming from any right-of-center voter.


True, but what she did went well beyond that and you know it.


No there were not. There has never been any evidence whatsoever that the 2020 election wasn't fair.


A distinction without a difference in this particular case, as you know if you haven't been under a rock since last January 6.


I shall pass over in silence the matter of how you would know what anything looks like from outer space, though it certainly would explain a lot.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden's Ukraine story​

BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 09/26/19 06:00 PM EDT 10,418
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
96,086
Share to Facebook Share to Twitter

​

Some of the new documents I obtained call that claim into question.
In a newly sworn affidavit prepared for a European court, Shokin testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation. “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,” Shokin testified.
“On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation,” Shokin added.

AOC wasn't really a public figure in 2017. She didn't get elected till the following year.

Since that's not even close to an accurate portrayal of what really happened, no, we can't see that. The entire Western diplomatic community wanted Shokin gone, as did plenty of Ukrainians. He was super corrupt. The worst Hunter Biden was guilty of was benefitting from nepotism, which, in light of who the last two Republican presidents were, is not a charge I take the least bit seriously coming from any right-of-center voter.


True, but what she did went well beyond that and you know it.


No there were not. There has never been any evidence whatsoever that the 2020 election wasn't fair.


A distinction without a difference in this particular case, as you know if you haven't been under a rock since last January 6.


I shall pass over in silence the matter of how you would know what anything looks like from outer space, though it certainly would explain a lot.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

A more accurate accounting:


In a newly sworn affidavit prepared for a European court, Shokin testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation. “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,” Shokin testified.

“On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation,” Shokin added.

Shokin certainly would have reason to hold a grudge over his firing. But his account is supported by documents from Burisma’s legal team in America, which appeared to be moving into Ukraine with intensity as Biden’s effort to fire Shokin picked up steam.

 

[pecksniff]

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

What would that have to do with Thomas?

 

[icanhelp1]

AOC wasn't really a public figure in 2017. She didn't get elected till the following year.

typo 2019

 

[icanhelp1]

What would that have to do with Thomas?

Double standard

 

[ishtat]

AOC is like Sanders before her = Manna from heaven for the Party: the GOP.

AOC needs to grow up and stop delivering votes to the Republicans. Her radical agenda is poison for the Democrats. She needs to get back to working on the basic stuff, the economy, health, education, and the relief of poverty - all through existing institutions. Otherwise she will wind up like Sanders - ineffectual for a lifetime.

 

[Champakian]

Well said...

Even for a furinner.

 

[Champakian]

Indeed, we are Somalia.

Children starving each day despite the mandatory school meals and the mandatory attendance...

 

[jaF0]

Lock him up!


And his Insurrectionist hag too.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Lock him up!


And his Insurrectionist hag too.

BLM terrorist first.

 

[YDB95]

AOC is like Sanders before her = Manna from heaven for the Party: the GOP.

AOC needs to grow up and stop delivering votes to the Republicans. Her radical agenda is poison for the Democrats. She needs to get back to working on the basic stuff, the economy, health, education, and the relief of poverty - all through existing institutions. Otherwise she will wind up like Sanders - ineffectual for a lifetime.

Right, the my fair lady strategy always works so very, very well for the Dems!

 

[Gorgoroth]

Right, the my fair lady strategy always works so very, very well for the Dems!

Might if they ever tried it instead of going for the most radical insane shit they can come up with.... like taxing unrealized capital gains...taxing theoretical wealth that doesn't exist.... LOL that's how fucking retarded AND unhinged Democrats are right now. Even better with you guys now fighting for the RIGHT to be sexually explicit in K-3rd classrooms.

Good luck this November after not only loosing congress but making this already very red map, even more red.....

By 2026 ya'll are going to have like 5 states and a dozen cities...... screeching artistically about taxing imaginary money and teachers ABSOLUTE right to sexually groom K-3rd graders in public schools!!!! Wondering how the USA could be so horribly and unbelievably racist they won't vote for you. Never once considering just how fucking insane you all appear to anyone not totally shit faced on woke flavored Kool-Aid.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I just feel like Thomas is better off politically recusing himself. I don't personally feel like his wife's views compromise anything in his opinions.

If Supreme Court justices recuse themselves simply because they (or their spouses) hold political views, then recusals would be expected on all hot button cases. Abortion, guns, speech, etc.

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent OpEd piece this morning that notes an observation stated by Chief Justice Robert’s over a decade ago:

“The general principle for recusal, listed in the U.S. Code, is that a judge should remove himself from any case in which ‘the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’ The Justices follow this principle, but they have an obligation that doesn’t apply to other judges. ‘Lower court judges can freely substitute for one another,‘ wrote Chief Justice Roberts in addressing the recusal issue in his 2011 annual report on the federal judiciary.

‘But the Supreme Court consists of nine Members who always sit together, and if a Justice withdraws from a case, the Court must sit without its full membership,’ the Chief continued. ‘A Justice accordingly cannot withdraw from a case as a matter of convenience or simply to avoid controversy.’

“Specifically, the Chief cited the 1924 Canons of Judicial Ethics that address judicial independence. ‘It provides,’ he wrote, ‘that a judge ‘should not be swayed by partisan demands, public clamor or considerations of personal popularity or notoriety, nor be apprehensive of unjust criticism.’ Such concerns have no role to play in deciding a question of recusal.”
——-

Judge Jackson has pledged to recuse herself from an upcoming case involving Harvard admission standards. That’s entirely appropriate because she sits on the board. If Ginni Thomas were a party to a case before SCOTUS, it would be appropriate for Justice Thomas to recuse himself as well. But the text messages she exchanged with Meadows do not indicate she has any connection to any 1/6 cases coming before the court. She attended the rally and left before any of the vandalism started, and she expressed silly views about the election, but nobody is suggesting she broke into the Capitol or even knows any of the people who were arrested.

 

[ll74]

If Supreme Court justices recuse themselves simply because they (or their spouses) hold political views, then recusals would be expected on all hot button cases. Abortion, guns, speech, etc.

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent OpEd piece this morning that notes an observation stated by Chief Justice Robert’s over a decade ago:

“The general principle for recusal, listed in the U.S. Code, is that a judge should remove himself from any case in which ‘the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’ The Justices follow this principle, but they have an obligation that doesn’t apply to other judges. ‘Lower court judges can freely substitute for one another,‘ wrote Chief Justice Roberts in addressing the recusal issue in his 2011 annual report on the federal judiciary.

‘But the Supreme Court consists of nine Members who always sit together, and if a Justice withdraws from a case, the Court must sit without its full membership,’ the Chief continued. ‘A Justice accordingly cannot withdraw from a case as a matter of convenience or simply to avoid controversy.’

“Specifically, the Chief cited the 1924 Canons of Judicial Ethics that address judicial independence. ‘It provides,’ he wrote, ‘that a judge ‘should not be swayed by partisan demands, public clamor or considerations of personal popularity or notoriety, nor be apprehensive of unjust criticism.’ Such concerns have no role to play in deciding a question of recusal.”
——-

Judge Jackson has pledged to recuse herself from an upcoming case involving Harvard admission standards. That’s entirely appropriate because she sits on the board. If Ginni Thomas were a party to a case before SCOTUS, it would be appropriate for Justice Thomas to recuse himself as well. But the text messages she exchanged with Meadows do not indicate she has any connection to any 1/6 cases coming before the court. She attended the rally and left before any of the vandalism started, and she expressed silly views about the election, but nobody is suggesting she broke into the Capitol or even knows any of the people who were arrested.

There's nothing simple about the situation. He's publicly stated that she influences his life greatly. When I say politically, I mean that there's no actual harm in a recusal and it would be a nod to at least acknowledging him recognizing the issue.

I heard an argument earlier today that there should be a mechanism for justices to submit this type of situation to the other justices and get their opinion/votes on recusal. That way you'd leave these types of things up to others instead of being the one to decide yourself. I do something similar for work where approvals for something I'm working on needs to go to a colleague who is not involved for independent review.

Ginny is part of record for all Jan 6 cases, since she was a party that contributed to the gathering.

 

[butters]

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAVIhP1.img?w=800&h=415&q=60&m=2&f=jpg

 

[Sean Renaud]

You know they aren't getting sexually explicit with kids right?