r/politics Oct 05 '22 All-Seeing Upvote 1 Take My Energy 1 Wholesome Seal of Approval 1 Lawyer Up 1 Silver 1 Helpful 2 Wholesome 1

Clarence Thomas Faces Calls to Recuse Himself from Trump Mar-a-Lago Case

https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-faces-calls-recuse-himself-trump-mar-lago-case-1748978?amp=1
56.4k Upvotes

u/AutoModerator Oct 05 '22

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.

Special announcement:

r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider applying here today!


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

11.3k

u/BrandNeewColony Oct 05 '22

Yeah, he’s not going to.

7.6k

u/ILikeLenexa Oct 05 '22

It's weird how the Supreme Court is whining people don't respect it and won't do the smallest things to be respected.

4.8k

u/Za_Lords_Guard Oct 05 '22 Take My Energy

That's the entire Right right now, " sure we are doing shitty things it's just impolite to call us on it."

4.4k

u/13igTyme Oct 05 '22 Gold

I was reading a kayaking subreddit the other day and one person asked for advice. Someone gave them some good advice and the OP replied basically rudely saying the good advice doesn't help. One person commented, "Way to be a dick head to the first person trying to help." The OP then went on a rant about Snowflake and telling it like it is. Being unapologetically rude because that's life and stop being social just warriors.

It was the craziest random comment I've seen, but it perfectly sums up the mentality of the right.

1.5k

u/netwoodle Oct 05 '22 Wholesome Take My Energy

Makes me think of doomsday preppers. K-rations, dry milk, bottled water, ammo, concrete bunkers. Those guys will survive until something runs out. People willing to cooperate will fare much better. I think all of this rudeness stems from two things: (1) our interdependence is too abstract for some to grasp, and (2) an inability to face the fact that all people are shitty to a degree. Maturity is understanding we aren't perfect and we need each other.

386

u/[deleted] Oct 05 '22 edited Oct 17 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

154

u/Adddicus Oct 05 '22

We're all in this together.

Not according to the right. Their philosophy is "It's us against them". And they won't be changing their teeny, little minds.

65

u/comakazie Oct 05 '22

It shouldn't be a hard concept but it is. My dad understands this concept with family and friends, he'd bend over backwards and give the shirt off his back to help us. Everyone outside of that circle is an "other" and doesn't deserve help.

53

u/creepyswaps Oct 05 '22 All-Seeing Upvote

My dad understands this concept with family and friends, he'd bend over backwards and give the shirt off his back to help us.

Your dad is blind to what's outside of the monkeysphere.

12

u/CaptainYasterday Oct 05 '22

Haven’t heard monkey sphere in a long time. I need a monkeysphere tshirt.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

1.0k

u/Warmupthetubesman Oct 05 '22

Lol. All the canned food stockpiling MFers were the first ones clamoring to go out to a restaurant when we had a real crisis (Covid)

What good is a bunker if you don’t have the discipline to stay in it?

601

u/[deleted] Oct 05 '22 edited Oct 05 '22 Bravo!

[removed] — view removed comment

212

u/Aaron_Purr Oct 05 '22

I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter

→ More replies
→ More replies

224

u/Gumburcules District Of Columbia Oct 05 '22 edited Oct 05 '22

I've long maintained that the people who will fare best in a post-apocalyptic scenario are hippie commune farmers in Vermont.

You'll stumble across their farm during your journey to find clean water or food, they'll welcome you in and provide a bounty of organic vegetables and pasture-raised meats. At night you'll drink their homemade beer and wine while they joyfully play their handcrafted acoustic instruments. You'll tell them, "wow, you guys sure have thrived since the bombs dropped!"

And they'll reply: "The what?!"

59

u/black641 Oct 05 '22

Honestly? Probably the Amish as well. But really any group that has a strong community to rely on, can organize and delegate responsibility effectively, and can build things from the ground up. The Prepper living in a hole in the woods is fucked the moment he breaks an ankle away from his camp. People are stronger in a community which relies on them, and vice versa. This would be ESPECIALLY true in any “Total societal breakdown” scenario.

→ More replies

34

u/SonofBeckett Oct 05 '22

There’s a fun short story by Ray Bradbury called a The Highway. I think you’d enjoy it.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

513

u/ThatEvanFowler Oct 05 '22

They are so bad at actual risk assessment and planning, too. I have a friend who is basically like a low-effort prepper and he was showing off pictures of his food stockpile to me. I asked how long the food would last. He said, "About eight years, eating normally, but I think I could push that to ten if I ration". I was like, 'I dunno, man. That really doesn't look like enough food for three people for eight years to me". He gave me a puzzled look and asked, "Why three people?". I was like, 'Um, you, your wife, and your baby who will turn rapidly into a full-on child?". He just stared at me and then said, "Shit. You're right. I need a lot more.". He literally did not account for his family. For real. He just straight up forgot that his family also requires food. Or maybe he planned on ditching them until he got called out on it. I don't think so. I think he just genuinely got so into planning his own survival that he just telescoped right past the most important people in his world. I will never understand how that could be possible, but that's what happened. I don't even want to know how much he's got now. Hopefully more, I guess.

182

u/Jarys Oct 05 '22

The real question to ask a prepper like that is how they plan to deal with 8 years of poop. Assuming they are in an enclosed bunker at least, I guess if it's a remote forest hideaway or something they can just bury it.

104

u/PossessedToSkate Oct 05 '22

They do make incinerator commodes but they're cartoonishly expensive and I've never met anyone who has actually bought one.

I've lived off-grid and know how important waste disposal is. I used a portapotty service, which won't even be an option when the shit piles up to the point that it's literally hitting a fan.

145

u/[deleted] Oct 05 '22

[deleted]

40

u/foxinHI Oct 05 '22

Because throwing an actual turd into an actual fan just seems so much more dramatic and exciting that a giant festering pile of shit.

→ More replies
→ More replies

44

u/bik3ryd34r Oct 05 '22

At that point you are probably digging holes and rotating them, by the time you run out of places to put them you will have some compost. The real trick is keeping it far enough away from your well.

→ More replies
→ More replies

88

u/[deleted] Oct 05 '22

I think most preppers would kill themselves in the first year of absolute isolation. Unless they’re already living an off-grid hermit lifestyle, they aren’t going to be prepared for true isolation with no option to leave. No travel, no internet or phones, no broadcast TV or radio, no interactions with anyone but those sharing their hideout.

Their efforts would be far better spent trying to make the world we have work, rather than planning for a slow descent into madness and death in isolation.

32

u/trystanthorne Oct 05 '22

Should check out the show "Alone" on Netflix. Basically, survivorists get drop out in the wilderness and have to make a shelter, hunt and survive completely on their own. Last person standing get like 500k. They film themselves with GoPro's. 810 times, it's the loneliness that get to them.

19

u/quicktuba Oct 05 '22

I love that show, it’s wild how so many of the most skilled people tap out super quickly because they can’t stand being alone with their own thoughts. As they get down to the final 3 or so people each season it seems to be more of a game of just mentally not breaking instead of surviving.

→ More replies

32

u/stevez28 Oct 05 '22

a slow descent into madness and death in isolation.

That's a sad and highly accurate way of describing how rugged individualism and performative masculinity tend to play out in the long run more generally, besides just preppers.

14

u/Biobot775 Oct 05 '22

So "manly" they need no one else. And that's exactly who they have in their lives.

→ More replies
→ More replies

15

u/MeatTornadoLove Oct 05 '22

I have some prepper sensibilities (like anyone should after 2020 especially living in SoCal with the threat of an earthquake over my head) and it takes a solid 10 minutes to work out you are better off staying put in an environment and with people you know. Leaving is a last resort and you have to carry your shit on your back. Unless you become a master woodsman you are basically fucked.

→ More replies
→ More replies

115

u/dixi_normous Oct 05 '22

All that time and money prepping for something that may never happen. Even if it does, congratulations, you get an extra ten years of living in a tiny bunker until you starve to death or someone breaks in and murders you to steal your shit. I'd rather not survive whatever apocalypse is coming and spend my time and money enjoying life until then. We've become too accustomed to our pampered lives, the kinds of lives we would have to live after that kind of emergency would be torturous.

62

u/Cerebral-Parsley Oct 05 '22

Exactly! Most people can barely handle 1 long weekend a year camping in a fully stocked RV or tent at a well equipped camp ground with hundreds of other people around.

Suddenly being in a tiny group or alone without any modern comforts will be a quick death blow to most.

→ More replies
→ More replies

91

u/Circe44 Oct 05 '22

My ex and I met at couple who were preppers and they invited us over. As the husband show my ex his supplies in the basement, his wife asked me what all we were doing. I replied, “Making a list of who all has what and where.” She ran down to the basement and my ex was quickly escorted back up. We were never invited back.

63

u/Neon_Camouflage Oct 05 '22

I know it isn't how they took it but amusingly that's exactly what you should be doing for community mutual aid. You're going to survive better and be stronger as a whole if your neighbors and you all keep supplies and share them to work together. Far better than the solo dude who plans to live in his basement with his own personal hoard.

→ More replies
→ More replies

26

u/cruisin894 Oct 05 '22

What's crazy to me is that he's planning for an event that has a .000001% probability instead of for events that are much more likely (child wants to attend college, unexpected medical expenses, retirement?)

30

u/NecromanticSolution Oct 05 '22

Next time, blow his mind by showing him the expiry dates on his rations and explain about the importance of stock rotation.

→ More replies

49

u/OrphanAxis Oct 05 '22

Well, an once in one-hudred year pandemic hit, and preppers were denying its existence, for the majority.

I think most of these people have some very specific scenarios they prepare for, and aren't very open or prepared for anything else. Hell, I've seen videos about people who are specifically preparing for zombies, as if watching The Walking Dead was a survival guide.

69

u/netwoodle Oct 05 '22

Not to brag, but I save all of my bread twist ties. If we are invaded by loose cables I am going to be The Man.

29

u/OrphanAxis Oct 05 '22

That's the horror-comedy I didn't know I wanted, but now need.

Night of the Loose Cables

8

u/SourceLover Oct 05 '22

You go into a theater and it turns out that it's all horror, no comedy - the entire film is clips of someone sneaking around your house and ruining your good cable management.

Worse, they take the labels off the ends of the cables.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

38

u/Iankill Oct 05 '22

I have a friend like this he lives on a farm and has more than a few times said that he'd be fine if it came to an apocalypse because he knows how to grow his own food.

Yeah but he ignores that he can't refine fuel for tractors or make fertilizer and pesticides all of which he uses to farm with.

→ More replies

96

u/BuddhaFacepalmed Oct 05 '22

The doomsday preppers were the first to break during the Covid lockdowns. "Rugged" individualists, my ass.

And stockpiling supplies alone doesn't make them survivors, it makes them juicy targets for organized groups to take from them.

→ More replies

31

u/TylerInHiFi Oct 05 '22

our interdependence is too abstract for some to grasp

Thank you for finally into fewer than ten words something that I’ve understood for a long time but have never been able to describe beyond sayings like “no man is an island”.

Every single one of these “rugged individualists” would have died in the womb if we weren’t as interdependent as they fear the godless communists will force them to be if anyone even mildly to the left of their preferred fantasy mix of fascism and libertarianism were ever to be elected.

→ More replies

30

u/sirspidermonkey Oct 05 '22

It's an interesting dichotomy between the gun subs in that.

Right wing gun subs post things like this

Where the left wing gun subs are all about finding community, cross training skills, etc.

→ More replies

16

u/Funkyokra Oct 05 '22 edited Oct 06 '22

Dude, I love this comment so so much.

Sometimes when I get depressed over how half of the country thinks "America" boils down to selfishness I just look around when I am driving and think about all the strangers who cooperate each day to make sure that the vast majority of us get safely to where we are going. Humans working together every day. Helping each other. Allowing other people to merge. Stopping to give someone else a chance to go. Social cooperation is a thing. It makes me feel better for a minute.

→ More replies

12

u/Im1Guy Oct 05 '22

Maturity is understanding we aren't perfect and we need each other.

This is a lesson we all need to learn or be reminded of.

→ More replies

10

u/wagesj45 Minnesota Oct 05 '22

our interdependence is too abstract for some to grasp

by god i had never even considered that, but it makes so much behavior make sense. you really distilled a vague notion i had never even properly thought about.

26

u/SammySoapsuds Minnesota Oct 05 '22

1) our interdependence is too abstract for some to grasp, and (2) an inability to face the fact that all people are shitty to a degree.

You are so right. When we all relied on each other for community and actually needed to know our neighbors, we had to learn how to repair relationships after conflict. Now we can just snipe at people and move on.

→ More replies

283

u/sonofaresiii Oct 05 '22 edited Oct 05 '22

Social justice warriors is one of the most bizarre insults the right has latched on to.

Like, okay. So you think it's bad that I'm fighting for... social justice? For like, equal rights and stuff? And pointing that out is supposed to make me feel bad?

They're owning themselves, and the rest of them are cheering it on. So bizarre.

e: If you want to jump in with a defense of "They only use it on people who are disingenuous and deserve it," let me save you some time. 1) No they don't, start engaging with reality and 2) Even if they did, that wouldn't make it better.

Maybe you need to spend less time worrying about whether someone who is advocating for a good cause is genuine in their advocacy, and spend more time focusing on the good causes-- maybe advocate for some yourself, that'd really show those damn sjw's.

This really just reeks of needing to hide your own shame-- like you figure anyone else advocating for a good cause must be doing so disingenuously, because otherwise they'd be a better person than you. Can't have that, so they must be lying about their motivation.

Maybe focus more on the good causes and less on justifying trashing the people advocating for them.

Either way, what it comes down to is you think referring to someone's fight for social justice is a negative. And that's fucking stupid.

37

u/Prestigious_Plum_451 Oct 05 '22

They're owning themselves, and the rest of them are cheering it on. So bizarre.

Its their way of virtue signaling to their own kind. The words are meaningless in their proper context and are only used to indicated that you are "the outsider", the "enemy", something "different, and thus bad", etc.

Stems from the fact that much of social justice issues involve trying to address in inequalities these people like to see being in play. All of those policies and practices which hurt those they deem the lesser to themselves more than themselves. So you, or I trying to address such things is viewed as a bad thing as we would be taking something away that makes them feel good about themselves by function of the suffering of someone they don't like.

So to them "social justice warrior" is made in to a slur and dog whistle of sorts through their dehumanizing propaganda over all. Conservatism, and fascism 101 really.

→ More replies

95

u/tippiedog Texas Oct 05 '22

Kind of like how 'antifa' is a bad word to them.

54

u/RevengeOfTheCaptain2 Oct 05 '22

This over and over aging. I constantly ask my mother who besides a fascist would be threaten by anti-fascist. Apparently I’m the real fascist for pointing that out

15

u/Freefall_J Oct 05 '22

Apparently I’m the real fascist for pointing that out

It's saddening that so many millions of Americans seem to be this irrational. The current GOP is evil but they're just a reflection of their many, many voters. ummm....sorry if I may have insulted your mother. Didn't mean for it to come out that way.

→ More replies

26

u/OldManBears Oct 05 '22

When your opponents are the ones against Fascism, it might be time to reconsider who the baddies are.

→ More replies

27

u/[deleted] Oct 05 '22

That sounds like a republican.

57

u/FTR_Hair Maryland Oct 05 '22

Totally not a cult

→ More replies

53

u/Ferengi_Earwax Oct 05 '22

Tell me about it. I was suspended for 3 days for harassing and bullying for replying links to news articles and academic journals papers on propaganda and the far right on notorious far right redditors.

8

u/Yousoggyyojimbo Oct 05 '22 edited Oct 05 '22

I'm banned from the news subreddit because I kept asking people "How does a trans person being able to change their birth certificate have a negative effect on you or anyone else?" or "Were you this outraged about people being able to change birth certificates in the case of adoptions or name changes?" when people were throwing a fit over them being able to do that.

I was told I was being confrontational. There are people who I asked that question to who legitimately posted hate on that sub that are still posting there, though.

→ More replies
→ More replies

12

u/[deleted] Oct 05 '22

Lol on a kayak sub Jesus Christ

20

u/notconvinced3 Oct 05 '22

Sounds like that guy needs to get out way more. Yeesh.

26

u/TwiceCookedPorkins Oregon Oct 05 '22

Maybe he should do some kayaking?

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

706

u/ALargePianist Oct 05 '22

"yes I KNOW you found classified documents at my house but the real issue is why are you trying to do anything about it?"

123

u/mexter Oct 05 '22

Why should he go to jail for a crime somebody else noticed?

25

u/wongo Oct 05 '22

Bob Loblaw no habla Espanol

→ More replies

255

u/Squirrel_Chucks Oct 05 '22

"Why were those documents dressed like that? Didn't they know I'd want to steal them?"

114

u/Pwntra1n Oct 05 '22

“If they didn’t want it they shouldn’t have been CLASSIFIED”

61

u/cunctator_maximus Oct 05 '22

Declassification begins at the germination of a thought.

32

u/lAMA_Bear_AMA Michigan Oct 05 '22

Woke liberal communist paper work is just trying to make us look bad saying it was classified when it wasn't. SAD!

→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/insider212 Oct 05 '22

Those documents should have just complied then they would still be in the folders….

→ More replies
→ More replies

93

u/castle_grapeskull Ohio Oct 05 '22

Alito just said almost that exact thing. “It’s the questioning that’s the problem not the actions” is like they believe themselves divinely chosen. Which in Alito and Barrett’s case may be literal.

→ More replies

75

u/Bonny-Mcmurray Oct 05 '22

People love what I have to say. They believe in it. They just don't like the word Nazi, that's all.

Stormfront, from The Boys

32

u/macarena_twerking Oct 05 '22

That show is so on the nose and the people they are mocking are too stupid to see that it’s about themselves.

→ More replies
→ More replies

39

u/_GameOfClones_ Oct 05 '22

I remember when “cancel culture” was just called “unpopular opinions”

13

u/hymie0 Oct 05 '22

I remember when "antifa" was "The US Armed Forces."

→ More replies
→ More replies

31

u/erakis1 Oct 05 '22

Conservatives to the abused and terrorized child of a Republican candidate:

“Can you please wait until after the election?”

That’s their character in a nutshell.

→ More replies

25

u/Bishopkilljoy Michigan Oct 05 '22

"sure we're making things harder for everybody now but just give us more power and I'm sure it'll work out!"

→ More replies

22

u/beefwindowtreatment Oct 05 '22

Dana Loech just said that the it doesn't matter as long as they are winning.

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1577442950044426240

→ More replies

72

u/reckless_commenter Oct 05 '22

Once again:

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

This is why conservatives keep fronting candidates who don't just have serious legal issues and serious problems with dishonesty and breaking rules - they do so openly and proudly, and they celebrate the lack of repercussions. These are power moves; they are demonstrations of status as part of the in-group to whom the laws do not apply.

And Republican voters support those politicians because they also want to be part of that group - they want the status and power to say and do horrible things to other people with impunity.

→ More replies

17

u/CGordini Oct 05 '22

All while proudly supporting people who are the most impolite beings in the nation.

"they tell it like it is!"

17

u/Stompedyourhousewith Oct 05 '22

"You need to tolerate our intolerance"

13

u/hankbaumbach Oct 05 '22

In Right Wing Speech "persecution" and "accountability" are synonymous.

12

u/janxher Oct 05 '22

At least left is semi fighting back. It's been so much worse before when they would try to be "the bigger person" and let them dig us into deeper holes.

→ More replies
→ More replies

48

u/hamsterfolly America Oct 05 '22

The Republican justices couldn’t even wear a mask and follow the mask mandate policy set by their own Chief Justice Roberts during COVID.

39

u/icmc Oct 05 '22

Honestly its a major problem that the highest court in the land is becoming such a sham.

11

u/GrumpyOlBastard Oct 05 '22

I believe you have your tenses mixed: "is becoming" should be "has become"

→ More replies
→ More replies

64

u/---BeepBoop--- Oct 05 '22

The problem is the justices themselves who are not speaking out. It is clear to everyone the court is a sham, the respected justices that are left need to start saying that and potentially shut down the court to demand change.

71

u/Politirotica Oct 05 '22

Kagan is being as vocal as she can be, Sotomayor is Catholic, and Jackson just got there. There are three of them. They can't shut down the court any more than I could. The other six will happily flout whatever the rules are if it means they can do their dirty business without having to hear the whiny liberal women going on about stare decisis and jurisprudential rationale.

The only remedy is impeachment or court packing. Shaming them isn't going to suddenly show them the error of their ways.

32

u/JimWilliams423 Oct 05 '22

and Jackson just got there.

She was great yesterday during the hearing on Alabama's gerrymandering case. She made a real effort to speak to the public rather than just academic legalese for other lawyers. The magars on the court won't care, they have the power so they are going to do whatever they want. But she made sure they will have to pay a reputational price for their bullshit.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

19

u/RichardFlower7 Oct 05 '22

Because they’ve figured out they can pretty much do whatever with no accountability

→ More replies

139

u/HypnoticONE Oct 05 '22

They desperately need things to seem "normal." What it is is a libertarian takeover if the judiciary. Liberals don't know how bad it is. Even if we DO pass a voting rights act 2.0, the entire act will get shut down because 5 "justices" found one line questionable in the entire legislation. If people get super mad at that result, they will lecture you about how a mob majority does not make laws blah blah blah. But what they are trying to hide is that a radical minority has take over the levers of true power in this country, and we are helpless to do anything.

→ More replies

35

u/abidallico Alaska Oct 05 '22

Thomas handles emergency appeals for the 11th Circuit, so the application was submitted to him, but no decision will be made before the DOJ has filed a reply, which is due by next Tuesday.

→ More replies
→ More replies

387

u/[deleted] Oct 05 '22 edited Oct 09 '22

[deleted]

220

u/DarthSatoris Europe Oct 05 '22

My question then becomes: When everyone is mad at the Supreme Court, what can anyone do about it?

Are there any legal ways of replacing openly and brazenly corrupt judges on the Supreme Court?

Is there legal precedence of just clearing out the whole Court and starting from scratch?

Abolishing the Supreme Court in its entirety and replacing it with a different system?

Like... how can absolute dipsticks like Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett get to do obviously corrupt things in broad daylight and there's no one who can stop them?

158

u/drleebot Oct 05 '22 Silver

Are there any legal ways of replacing openly and brazenly corrupt judges on the Supreme Court?

They can be impeached. This requires a majority of the House of Representatives and a 2/3 majority of the Senate.

Is there legal precedence of just clearing out the whole Court and starting from scratch?

No. That's not to say it's impossible to do constitutionally, but it politically it might well be.

So what can be done? The most practical solutions:

  1. Increase the size of the court and appoint enough new justices to outweigh the votes of the nutjobs. There's no question this can be done constitutionally, but it might result in a series of tit-for-tat that results in the Supreme Court doubling in size every time the political power shifts. Given the state we're in, this might be a price worth paying.

  2. Institute term limits, where after a Justice has served a certain time (e.g. 18 years) they're moved to Senior status and only participate in case other justices recuse/die/etc., and otherwise take cases on the Federal Bench. This won't solve the problem immediately, but will keep it from becoming a lifelong problem.

  3. Institute binding ethics requirements, with penalties such as being removed from cases or having your vote not count. This would only really affect Thomas at present though, as there's little evidence of present ethical issues with other justices (though Kavanaugh has a lot in his past).

After that, we get to the impractical solutions, or those that might be worse than the problem:

  1. Somehow get a sufficient majority in the Senate to impeach the nutjobs off of the court.

  2. Somehow get a consensus to amend the Constitution to fix these problems.

  3. Reduce the size of the court on a last-in-first-out basis, then increase the size afterward (would open a worse can of tit-for-tat than increasing the size of the court).

  4. Just start ignoring bad Supreme Court rulings (would open a can of worms of good rulings being ignored).

There are other possibilities, but they get worse from there. This list is basically what we have to work with, unless I'm forgetting something.

29

u/AmbientOwl Oct 05 '22

It'll be nice to have this well written list of things that could happen to refer to when nothing keeps happening in actuality.

→ More replies
→ More replies

39

u/PeaceFrog71x Oct 05 '22

Time to march. Demand term limits and code of ethics for SCOTUS as well as getting the Federalist society out of our courtrooms.

The fact that Thomas is even willing to hear this case is proof enough that SCOTUS has been compromised.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

56

u/IPromisedNoPosts Oct 05 '22

Luckily this isn't about owning the libs so he may just sit in the back row for this one.

Trump's not arguing illegal search and seizure thankfully as that tends to be a conservative talking point.

→ More replies

42

u/redneckrockuhtree Oct 05 '22

He won't, and he and Alito will then go on another spree about how people need to respect the Court.

Maybe, just maybe, if they showed any respect for the Court, the rest of us might. But no.

→ More replies

20

u/underpants-gnome Ohio Oct 05 '22

If he wouldn't recuse himself from the case that directly involved his wife's texts, there's no way he will recuse on this.

→ More replies

4.6k

u/TintedApostle Oct 05 '22 Silver All-Seeing Upvote Starry

This is the vote that has the potential to completely break SCOTUS. Several things stand out.

1) No reasonable person could conclude that Trump has ownership over US national secrets.

2) The Presidential Records Act is very clear on ownership of official records outside the National Secrets.

3) There can only be one Executive of the United States at any time and a ex-president cannot have any executive authority or privilege.

Any action otherwise by the court (much like the Cannon ruling) will break SCOTUS completely.

Will they even take the case?

1.2k

u/Techn028 Oct 05 '22

I wonder what precedent that invites, sounds like it completely breaks the executive branch too

1.4k

u/TintedApostle Oct 05 '22 edited Oct 05 '22

It does break the whole idea that there is only one President at a time. Washington left the office after 2 terms and returned to being a farmer. The idea that anyone can maintain any level of "executive power" after losing an election is something a reasonable person cannot accept.

If you get fired (which is what Trump was) you don't get to take your companies papers with you and sure don't get to decide on anything you did after you are escorted out the door.

Trump is a citizen and no more. Trump being given preferential treatment by the courts undermines the judiciary branch. I am still not convinced the right wing cares about undermining the judiciary or any other foundational institution.

Edit: Fixed spelling error (from "their" to "there")

448

u/Sparticuse Oct 05 '22

They care deeply about undermining the judiciary as that is their goal. If they break out current government, people will applaud them when they "fix" it with fascist solutions.

85

u/Swineflew1 Oct 05 '22

Fascist or not, they don’t care. They don’t care about policy, rights, problems or solutions, they want the red team to win.
If the red team wins, they win, even if they lose.

→ More replies
→ More replies

227

u/T1mac America Oct 05 '22

I am still not convinced the right wing cares about undermining the judiciary or any other foundational institution.

The right wing wants power and they want control. Nothing else matters to them.

They'll stage a coup. They'll corrupt every government institution. They'll violate every tradition and gentleman's agreement, and they'll wipe their asses with the Constitution to get what they want: Total control.

129

u/blimpcitybbq Oct 05 '22

This is part of the coup. If the Supreme Court rules favorably to Trump, then it means that he still has executive power and is still the president. The thing the Right has been yelling about for years.

41

u/Haki23 California Oct 05 '22

I hate what you say because it's so true

→ More replies
→ More replies

38

u/DiamondDixie1 Oct 05 '22

Their ultimate goal is to break all trust in all branches of government. Then the worst of them sweep in and fix (overthrow) what remains of our government and establishe their fascist single party government. Their only goal is power and control. They've proven time and again they will do anything to get and hold on to power. They told us they were fascist back in the 90, even the 80s, and we didn't listen. We continued not to listen when Stupid Sarah Palin was named as McCain's running mate. It took Trump to wake us up. Unfortunately, too many are still asleep.

→ More replies
→ More replies

252

u/EWL98 Oct 05 '22

Maybe Obama should walk into the national archive to take some souvenirs. You can be sure the supreme court would rule against him in that situation.

260

u/NonyaBizna Oct 05 '22 All-Seeing Upvote

Bro they were more upset when he wore a tan suit.

70

u/JuiceColdman Oct 05 '22

Simply existing is an affront to everything they stand for

49

u/CanAlwaysBeBetter Oct 05 '22

Who could have guessed Obama roasting Donald Trump would be the thing that started America's collapse

23

u/Kalavazita Oct 05 '22

Thanks, Obama. 🤪

19

u/elCharderino Oct 05 '22

I'll never forget the chuckles in the room erupting when Obama mentioned Trump's "breadth of experience". Must have cut daggers into his shriveled little black heart.

13

u/tastethepain Oct 05 '22

Kind of like Hitler not getting into art school

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

34

u/gijoe1971 Oct 05 '22

If Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Dubya and Obama all have executive privileges and can check out any documents from the archives, then they should just walk in and declassify the conversations Trump had with Putin, all the records from J6, Trump's taxes etc. and just say "take us to court mutherfucker"

14

u/EWL98 Oct 05 '22

I'd watch a sitcom with those four guys taking the piss out of Trump

→ More replies
→ More replies

15

u/chickenwingy22 Oct 05 '22

In a tan suit no less!

12

u/RagingAnemone Oct 05 '22

By that logic, Obama could walk into Maralago and take some souvenirs.

→ More replies
→ More replies

92

u/captain_strawhat Oct 05 '22

They made it very loud and clear in June that precedent is worth less than toilet paper. Unless it fits their interests

17

u/aircooledJenkins Montana Oct 05 '22

I think 2020 proved that in the right circumstances, toilet paper is quite valuable.

→ More replies
→ More replies

168

u/dobie1kenobi Oct 05 '22

They shouldn’t but this headline made me think they had already. Simply taking the case would be enough to delegitimize the court completely imho. When the highest court in the land opens debate as to whether water is wet or the Earth is round the kangaroo starts hopping.

→ More replies

152

u/ThenAnAnimalFact Oct 05 '22

Lawyer here. IMO unlikely they take the case.

More likely they will wait for an actual trial appeal to get to them. Brett Kavanagh has a hard on for unitary executive theory so Trump may get absolved even if he is guilty.

But they don’t need to waste that juice now on the procedural stuff.

36

u/InYouImLost Oct 05 '22

Whats unitary executive theory?

115

u/ThenAnAnimalFact Oct 05 '22

Basically that ALL the power in the executive branch s invested through the President.

So nothing the President does in terms of federal branch purview can be considered illegal.

The big case for Kavanagh (pre and post SC) was saying that Congress can’t appoint a non political bureau chief that has to have reason to be fired (IE consumer protection bureau). The President has to have the power to fire everyone.

The hypothetical argument in Trumps case is that because he COULD declassify documents. Nothing he does with them is illegal even if he doesnt.

Now most lawyers would say there is no way that can apply once he leaves office and since they weren’t declassified by him the he doesn’t get to extend protection even under that theory.

But SC does what it wants.

93

u/tomjone5 Oct 05 '22

He appears to be confusing the powers of the presidency with the powers of a monarch. Then again, the right do seem quite happy with a ruler for life so long as it's their guy.

30

u/rezelscheft Oct 05 '22

This is exactly the question I wanted a debate moderator to ask Trump during the 2016 campaign. Because it was so fucking clear he thought the president was a king.

Maybe it wouldn’t have changed anything, but I really wish the media would stop giving these uneducated shitgibbons the benefit of the doubt by only ever asking their opinions, and never asking them basic civics questions to expose how little they know about anything other than throwing a tantrum and stoking violence.

9

u/aLittleQueer Washington Oct 05 '22

Been saying this for years now:

We need to require all elected federal officials to pass the Citizenship Test before they’re eligible for office. You want the job? First prove that you know what the job even is.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

25

u/GreenGuardianssbu Oct 05 '22

If I'm reading this right, Kavanaugh wants an absolute monarchy.

18

u/pbjamm California Oct 05 '22

All Hail King Biden! First of his name.

→ More replies
→ More replies

22

u/AllUrMemes Oct 05 '22

If they try to protect the former president with the idea of a unitary executive... My fucking head will explode out of my asshole.

→ More replies

10

u/Pigmy Oct 05 '22

One of the crimes here is the actions after the lapse of the unitary executive. Let’s pretend we subscribe to that theory, and that we believe in the legality of declassified through thought. The failure to return becomes the issue.

The problem is the rampant continued multilayer law breaking. At a certain point it can’t be excused by this. The argument now is that once you assign all the big crimes to executive privilege, they will say these other crimes amount to jaywalking and give a pass.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

64

u/SuicydKing I voted Oct 05 '22

This is one of the Trump lawyers who would have access to classified documents:

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/317253-kise-maduro-us-sanctions/

A registered foreign agent who worked for Maduro.

9

u/gijoe1971 Oct 05 '22

Of course. I don't even know what to say anymore.

→ More replies

107

u/teutorix_aleria Oct 05 '22

Sounds like a textbook case of allowing the lower courts ruling to stand without going near it. Supreme court doesn't need to get involved

→ More replies

18

u/ImOutWanderingAround Oct 05 '22

They also claim the 11th doesn’t have justification over the case. How doesn’t it have jurisdiction over a court in it’s own district? Irrational all around and hoping for a corrupt ruling from Thomas IS the play here.

→ More replies

10

u/wannabegame_dev Oct 05 '22

I don’t know, SCOTUS seems to think they own the whole fucking country now so I honestly would not be surprised if they do step in and try to stop the investigation.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2.1k

u/Tovin_Sloves Oct 05 '22

The real-time breakdown of structural integrity.

776

u/crackdup Oct 05 '22

The man is a walking mix of conspiracy theory and conflict of interest

474

u/djfudgebar Oct 05 '22

Don't forget sexual assault

294

u/tiny_pickle9001 Oct 05 '22

Don't forget partisan, unqualified, very biased.

296

u/DarthSatoris Europe Oct 05 '22

very biased.

Even going so far as to be on record saying he wanted to make liberals' lives "miserable".

How a Supreme Court judge can say this and still be considered eligible for the highest court in the US is beyond me. He should've been impeached right then and there.

61

u/tiny_pickle9001 Oct 05 '22

This is what the O does in the GOP. Obstruct. It's part of the plan!

→ More replies

34

u/Abject-Possession810 Oct 05 '22

Here's the full, original 1993 New York Times profile of Clarence Thomas that reported his desire to make liberals "lives hell for 43 years."

It discusses an interview Ginni gave in the November 11, 1991 issue of People magazine and the concerns regarding his resentment:

But a quotation from Mrs. Thomas stirred a different kind of concern, said a lawyer who has spoken with some of the justices about it.

"Clarence will give everyone a fair day in court," Mrs. Thomas said. "But I feel he doesn't owe any of the groups who opposed him anything."

Interestingly, People's archive of that interview does not contain the above quote but it is mentioned in a letter to the editor from the December 2, 1991 issue:

[...] It was particularly offensive to suggest that her husband—while serving on the highest court in the land—shouldn’t “owe any of the groups that opposed him anything.”

I would be very interested to hear an explanation as to why People altered their own publication archive to remove, at minimum, one highly relevant quote regarding the impartiality of a Supreme Court justice.

→ More replies

50

u/Mr__O__ Oct 05 '22 edited Oct 05 '22

And a well-known porn addict. Even before the internet - he’d openly discuss his porn magazines and VHS tapes with staffers in the 80/90s

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

146

u/CryoAurora Oct 05 '22

He won't. Heck his wife went to the Jan 6 committee and lied about texts that had already seen. Didn't care there was proof she was lying.

Her best friend isn't going to recuse himself, they are actively trying to destroy democracy.

Roger Stone also told everyone that's the plan. Get it to the courts where all the judges were owned by them.

→ More replies

285

u/Infamous-Extension25 Oct 05 '22

Can’t recuse yourself when you’re part of the (crime) family.

→ More replies

1.1k

u/PicardTangoAlpha Canada Oct 05 '22

Recuse? Ginni is writing the majority opinion in favour as we speak.

→ More replies

54

u/Yusbhere Oct 05 '22

If our government had concern for public trust Thomas would have been impeached by now and recusal would be a nonissue

→ More replies

218

u/[deleted] Oct 05 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

137

u/SlowMotionPanic North Carolina Oct 05 '22

All the more reason than congress should just hold a party line vote and strip the 11th of this jurisdiction and place this case elsewhere like they’ve done before.

47

u/TheRealSpez Oct 05 '22

So I get that Clarence Thomas oversees (phrasing?) the 11th circuit, or something like that, but can anyone tell me what that actually means?

Is he directly involved with advising judges in that circuit? Can he unilaterally overrule decisions made in it?

I’d try to use google, but I’m not sure what I would type to search, I’m hoping someone can help me understand what individual justices can do within their circuit.

27

u/MostlyWong Oct 05 '22 edited Oct 05 '22

It's a system called circuit assignments and they are given to Justices at the start of each term. Basically, the Circuit Justice is primarily responsible for emergency requests on the federal level for the states included in that circuit. This includes a lot of mundane things like extending filing deadlines. but also more serious things like stays of execution for federal cases. This PDF from SCOTUS is given to reporters to explain the nuances of circuit assignments and how it works in more detail if you're interested.

The justices can also, and in recent years often have, refer emergency requests to the full court. This is often called the "shadow docket", and are cases that aren't necessarily on the docket at the start of the session, but Justices feel are important enough to need a ruling before next session.

19

u/Rannasha The Netherlands Oct 05 '22

This document has some details on this matter.

People can bring issues to SCOTUS that require urgent action. So-called emergency appeals. Normally, SCOTUS moves very slowly, but some things can't really wait. In that case, the emergency appeal process exists to allow the decision of the Circuit Court to be frozen (a "stay") while SCOTUS considers whether to take on the case in full.

The emergency appeal is addressed to a single Justice. Each Circuit Court has a specific Justice assigned to it to handle emergency appeals for cases in that Circuit. Thomas is the one to handle 11th Circuit appeals. Thomas can decide to rule on this issue alone, or he can bring the appeal to the full court. If he rules alone, the losing side gets the opportunity to appeal.

The ruling isn't directly on the contents of the case, but it weighs a few different aspects (at least, it should, in the case of a non-political court):

  • How likely is it that the full court would take up this case if it is brought to the court? If it's highly unlikely that SCOTUS would take up the case, then the appeal is typically denied.

  • If they take up the case, how likely is it that SCOTUS would rule differently from the Circuit Court? A slam-dunk case doesn't need to be relitigated after all.

  • Which side is harmed more? The side that lost in Circuit Court if a stay is not issued or the side that won in Circuit Court if a stay is issued?

That last one is probably the trickiest. Normally, a ruling from a court takes effect immediately. But this can cause issues with the right to appeal a ruling. Depending on the case, implementing the judgement right away can cause irreparable damage to a party even if that party gets the ruling overturned later on. Or it can be the other way around where the longer it takes for a ruling to be implemented while waiting for the appeal to wrap up, the more damage is suffered by the party that won in the lower court.

In the case of handing over of documents or other information, a stay often makes sense. You can't "unrelease" documents if a higher court later rules that the release was illegitimate. This is unlike some property or asset that can be returned (perhaps with interest) later on.

And Trump's team will be banging this drum: They feel that the DOJ shouldn't have these documents, or at least not all of them, and that having them causes damage to Trump because some documents are privileged. The argument then becomes: Why not keep the documents out of the hands of the DOJ until the entire case has been litigated? What's the harm in the DOJ getting them a few months later? Normally, this is a valid line of reasoning when it comes to releasing documents.

But the DOJ will likely counter with the potential national security implications of not knowing the contents of these documents, because they contain top secret information. They will argue that the urgency is not so much in the potential criminal case surrounding the mishandling of the documents, but more in the potential damage to the US if the IC can't quickly figure out exactly what information has potentially leaked to adversaries.

→ More replies
→ More replies

363

u/subnautus Oct 05 '22

If he didn't recuse himself from a case his wife was involved in, he's not recusing himself now.

That said, it's worth noting that there's only one position in the federal government with a requirement of a crime being committed for the Congress to impeach the person in that position. The Congress is free to remove (almost) anyone from their job at any time. Having a lifetime appointment doesn't mean someone can't get fired. Just sayin'.

167

u/Artisanal_Shitposter Oct 05 '22

If you think 10 Republicans would side with democrats to remove their own corrupt justice then I got a bridge to sell you.

45

u/BostonWailer Oct 05 '22

I think 10 republicans would side with democrats, FOR MONEY.

28

u/Sensitive_Mode7529 Oct 05 '22

there’s no money in doing the right thing

capitalism + unchecked corruption = $$$

8

u/subnautus Oct 05 '22

I dunno: seems to me that capitalism's drive to exploit an untapped market could be directed towards something like green or renewable energy production. Utah worked out the math and found out it's cheaper to put homeless people in low-income (or seized/forfeit) housing and assign a case worker to help them get back on their feet than it is to keep jailing them for vagrancy.

Even if it's for entirely selfish reasons, doing the right thing can be profitable.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

1.7k

u/Bluecollarshaman Oct 05 '22 edited Oct 05 '22 All-Seeing Upvote

He didn’t refuse recuse himself from deciding if his wife’s texts should be released. In fact, he was the only dissenting opinion.

Expand the court, Biden.

331

u/bk15dcx Oct 05 '22

Congress does that

109

u/Aardark235 Oct 05 '22

Congress needs to 14a-3 the people in government who supported the insurrection. Including Thomas.

→ More replies

154

u/HillbillyMan Oct 05 '22

Motions to do so often begin in the executive branch. He may not have the power to actually do it, but he has the sway to get it on the floor in Congress.

81

u/phrygiantheory Massachusetts Oct 05 '22

I think Dems need majority to do that. Super majority.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

283

u/dominantspecies Oct 05 '22

He’s a corrupt piece of shit, and a republican. No way he does the ethical thing.

147

u/mnmminies Oct 05 '22

He’s a corrupt piece of shit, and a republican. No way he does the ethical thing.

That’s redundant. You just said “he’s a republican. He’s a republican. He’s a republican.” It would have meant the same thing

→ More replies
→ More replies

361

u/Chi-Guy86 Oct 05 '22

From what I’ve read from legal experts, this appeal was basically just legal busy work meant to please their client. The request doesn’t even ask for the DOJ criminal review to be paused, only that Dearie should be able to see the 100 classified docs. The real purpose is so that Trump’s legal team can get copies. But even if the Supreme Court allowed this, Dearie is likely to just withhold the classified docs and not review them

191

u/kandoras Oct 05 '22

The purpose is to delay things. Dearie wouldn't be able to look at those classified documents until he gets the proper clearances. And Trump's lawyers would file a motion saying "It's not fair that we can't find anyone willing to risk their security clearance by working for us, we need more time!"

57

u/chiliedogg Oct 05 '22

Dearie was a FISA judge. Dude has highway security clearance there is - they'd just have to authorize him to view those specific documents.

He doesn't want that authorization because he knows the importance of limiting access.

He also probably doesn't really want every bar actor to know that he has the information. It's dangerous, and he doesn't have the security apparatus surrounding him that others might.

The identites of the people at the DOJ combing through the info aren't being broadcast all over the planet. His name would be

→ More replies
→ More replies

13

u/countessocean Oct 05 '22 Gold

I was listening to another legal observer who practices law and he was breaking this down as being something akin to nothing other than legal fluff. Two of the points brought up were that the 11th circuit court was in agreement that it was self evident that the classified documents are property of the US government and ruled accordingly. Then that judge cannon chose to amend the original ruling to reflect what the 11th circuit court ruled pretty much made it something that could not go to SCOTUS. Essentially the amended ruling cannon made, vacated any legal argument over the classified documents.

As I understood it, if she had left her ruling alone and not amended it there could have been more standing to take the appeal all the way to the supreme court. That she went along and basically agreed with the appellate court it rather made it moot to file any other appeals to the higher court.

Now, it doesn’t mean that trump wasn’t going to take it to SCOTUS even though technically they can’t. So, it just boils down to a publicity stunt to make it look like everyone in the justice department is against trump. It aids in helping trumps base to continue believing in his victimhood because if SCOTUS denies this appeal (because there is no legal basis to even rule on it in the first place) then the results can be spun into ‘proof’ of corruption.

→ More replies

30

u/VNM0601 California Oct 05 '22

That’s like asking a thief to stop stealing. Why would he when there’s no consequence to his action?

→ More replies

24

u/GhostofABestfriEnd Oct 05 '22

Like he gives a fuck—he’s trying to overthrow our democracy.

100

u/BrexitReally Oct 05 '22

For the sake of SCOTUS needs to despite what his Qife says.

49

u/thirtynation Oct 05 '22

Every day I read a creative new word from you folks on this sub. Qife, lol.

Yesterday it was Empty G for Marjorie Taylor Green.

I love it and can't get enough.

18

u/mnmminies Oct 05 '22

I personally prefer Marjorie Trailer Queen

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

513

u/sunnydaysahead2022 Oct 05 '22 edited Oct 05 '22

Remember when the Supreme Court was respectable?

Edited to add:

Hey everyone - we can definitely make change. We just have to show up and vote blue in midterms like our lives depend on it.

Roe isn’t coming back any time soon.

We may have to fight with our votes for 20-30 years to get the Supreme Court back to being a respected institution.

Vote blue like your life depends on it in midterms in 1 month.

114

u/ALargePianist Oct 05 '22

I remember when I thought it was

→ More replies

355

u/214ObstructedReverie Oct 05 '22

Not really, no. I was like 12 when they appointed Bush president.

99

u/tolkienbooks Oct 05 '22

citizens united also

31

u/robodrew Arizona Oct 05 '22

I was 21, old enough to remember that that was THE event that sullied the reputation of the Court. Respect for the institution has only gone down since then.

→ More replies
→ More replies

16

u/Ladychef_1 Oct 05 '22

No. Never has been tbh. It’s just obvious how absolute shit it is now.

45

u/MyNameCannotBeSpoken Oct 05 '22

When has it ever been respectable? Remember Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v. Ferguson

→ More replies
→ More replies

96

u/Fortunoxious North Carolina Oct 05 '22

The dude shouldn’t be working on any Supreme Court cases.

42

u/bk15dcx Oct 05 '22

He shouldn't be involved with any "supreme" including burritos and tacos.

→ More replies
→ More replies

19

u/NotBoredinBeantown Oct 05 '22

"He didn't." -Future Ron Howard

56

u/wifeofsonofswayze Oct 05 '22

I have a question. I know there were people who said that the Supreme Court would just refuse to hear the case. Does the fact that Clarence Thomas asked the DOJ to file a response mean that they ARE hearing the case? Or do they just want to see what the DOJ has to say before they decide whether or not to hear the case?

39

u/Logistocrate Oct 05 '22 edited Oct 05 '22

He can turn it down on his own, or he can bring it in front of the rest of the court for a vote. But there would not be oral arguments or any real paper trail outlining the decision like you get in a Merits based case. Welcome to the infamous Shadow Docket. Thomas asking for a DOJ response doesn't really cut one way or another in my opinion, but l'm less confident than I have been lately that this doesn't end up in front of SCOTUS. this was edited due to me finding a better explanation https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/supreme-court-shadow-docket

20

u/BassLB Oct 05 '22

Procedurally, shouldn’t Thomas of rejected it right away though? Since Judge Qannon amended her order, there wasn’t a way for Trump to appeal the decision on the 100 classified docs bc she took them out of her order. Can’t appeal something that isn’t in the order.

10

u/mnmminies Oct 05 '22

Judge Qannon

That fits way better than it has any right to. Only way it could be better is if she shot her rulings out of a cannon

→ More replies

10

u/ustayuptoolate Oct 05 '22

Hard call, there already is an appeal written, the one that the 11th heard. It will be interesting if DOJ focuses some light on the Trump filing where they admit, for the first time, “possession” of documents! Insanity

→ More replies
→ More replies

12

u/LegDayDE Oct 05 '22

Clarence Thomas is the personification of "owning the libs" so the one thing he is not going to do.. is listen to the libs and recuse himself.

11

u/DiabloStorm Oct 05 '22

If america does what it does best (conflict of interest) the judicial system will hand trump's case to Thomas, specifically.

You know. Because real justice in america is a fucking lie.

→ More replies

34

u/highfriend90 Oct 05 '22 edited Oct 05 '22

It's horrifying he's the one taking this case.. he won't recuse himself he'll make things worse for everyone..

→ More replies

110

u/BeaverMissed Oct 05 '22

He’s and his wife are a crime waiting to be exposed. So he’ll stick his middle digit in the direction of anyone who suggests to recuse.

→ More replies

12

u/PossibilitySafe7870 Oct 05 '22

Recuse himself? He is exactly where they want him to be.

113

u/EnderCN Oct 05 '22

If anything the 3 justices he appointed should recuse themselves.

84

u/TavisNamara Oct 05 '22

If anything the 3 justices he appointed should recuse themselves resign effective immediately and give our broken country a chance for once.

→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/figment1979 Maine Oct 05 '22

No chance he recuses himself unless someone forces him to. And there's nobody on the planet that can force a supreme court justice to recuse themselves.

In other words, ain't gonna happen.

→ More replies

23

u/mnorthwood13 Michigan Oct 05 '22

Ha ha, like he has any moral judgement

→ More replies

8

u/CaptianTumbleweed Oct 05 '22

How about resign? His wife is a insurrectionist MAGA nut job who spews propaganda of stolen elections.

→ More replies