JoeMauer89 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 12:04 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 11:52 am
Kismet wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 11:30 am
CU88 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 11:06 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:27 am
There was a question of was Thomas really in the hospital. I would say yes. The information released on his "illness" is not good. The claim is he is on intravenous antibiotics. Likely meaning he is sceptic. You wouldn't release this kind of information if he was just hiding out. The original expectation was that he would be released 2-3 days ago. He is still in the hospital as far as I know. The court has declined to supply any additional information since Sunday. Clearly what is going on is more serious than originally imagined.
I would not be surprised if he retires in the near future due to "health" reasons?
I don't see it unless there are more developments with his spouse and any other incriminating information that would raise the possibility of an impeachment. Retirement would have to cut off any investigation of him personally.
Replacing him does not change the balance of the court much except it puts the Chief back in the swing vote in certain cases.
mmm, replacing him would take away a lot of the risks currently faced. Not swing it to liberal, but off the deep conservative bent now on.
If the Dems lose the Senate, and this comes up then, would McConnell even allow a vote? I don't think so.
Seems to me that if the "retirement" is due to political rather than actual health reasons, it might not be just an impending impeachment, but rather the ongoing heat of the investigation into Ginni. There'd be a lot less heat, not zero, but a lot less, if he was no longer on the SC. And the questions will be coming again and again as there are more revelations, as I think it's a safe bet there will be. She's off her rocker and had access to all the top players in this mess, so there'll be more.
And what did he know and when did he know it will keep being a problem for Thomas, regardless of whether an actual impeachment is started in the House.
So, a preemptive turn down the heat, reduce the stakes, would be a rational play...but are these people rational?
Why are you discussing removing Thomas? Has anyone of credibility even mentioned as much in the media, better yet even insuinated it? (I understand that this is what YOU want to happen, but you frame it as if it is a LIKELIHOOD). Do you not see anything wrong with that? Jesus you really love to think you can control things you absolutely have ZERO control over. The man just got out of the hospital. Hopefully his health is better. Maybe it forces him from his position, hopefully not. Whether or not this is an online forum, are you incapable of seeing how you come off sometimes? Like you feel like you have to be in control of every situation and that you have your hand on the pulse of every situation when in reality it couldn't be further from the truth. Even if it that's not the way you are trying to portray it, it's how it COMES OFF. The fact you are incapable of seeing it more than a handful of times is either hubris, willful ignorance or some combination of both. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is an anonymous forum. There's just no way you could get away with this stuff in a normal in-person interaction. Hopefully it's the lack of context in this format. It amazes me sometimes.
Joe
Come on Joe. Don't attack me.
First, I'm not particularly anonymous, I'm pretty open about who I am.
So, yes, I'd be perfectly comfortable saying my views on Thomas in person.
Second, I profess zero control over any aspect of this...have no idea where you make that one up from.
Third, I'm certainly not wishing ill on Thomas health wise.
I doubt that this particular health scare is going to force him out; he's also only 73.
But fourth, I think he has some very serious matters coming at him because of his wife's behavior, his refusal to recuse and sole dissent on an 8-1 decision, the questions of what did he know and when did he know it...and yes, there's lots of discussion on removal by impeachment.
https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thoma ... nt-1691892
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... ifes-texts
a week ago:
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi ... d-n1292076
https://www.wispolitics.com/2022/nelson ... ce-thomas/
a month ago:
https://newrepublic.com/article/165118/ ... -democrats
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022 ... reme-court
I think that's not likely given the partisan politics, but certainly there's cause.
Fifth, my
speculation, therefore, is that he may wish to avoid the scrutiny, and indeed may wish to turn down the heat on his wife, which I think is likely to be higher given his position. On the other hand, that would require a quite rational decision, and frankly, I'm not sure rationality is available to the Thomases at this point...she's very obviously gone round the bend and he's apparently been just fine with that, and it appears he's known...and been ok with it. Even to the point of signaling that he's on the side of hiding the facts about what went down in the White House and the efforts to overturn the election.
So, if I was placing a bet down at this point, I'd bet that the revelations will keep coming, will get worse and the pressure will get intense. Would the House actually move to an impeachment, assuming it's obvious that's there's cause? I'd bet not. Could be wrong. And certainly a new House won't.
I'd see the only likely way he'd step down (absent health) would be to take the heat off. And I have serious doubts about whether he's rational enough to do so. Which will mean a sh-tshow on this given more revelations...