SCOTUS

[Kismet]

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.

That said, it is truly amazing how all these clowns filled up all their phones with texts that now might implicate them. Now reporting that Kushner was also involved with Ginni Thomas and Meadows.

Replacing him does not change the balance of the court much except it puts the Chief back in the swing vote in certain cases.

[MDlaxfan76]

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?

[JoeMauer89]

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

[RedFromMI]

My Twitter feed says Thomas was released from the hospital:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... d_ms_tw_ma

[seacoaster]

My Twitter feed says Thomas was released from the hospital:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... d_ms_tw_ma

Yes, the Times just reported the same. Discharged this AM.

[jhu72]

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

... I think you are living in a fantasy land. There have been calls for Thomas' impeachment in the press based on the wife's behavior. But even if there weren't I really don't see anything written in this post by MDlax that is out of bounds. It is properly conditioned speculation. Suitable for this or any forum, including in-person interaction. Something about it clearly bothers you, but I think that is your problem, not MDlax's. There is no suggestion of control by MDlax in his post.

[MDlaxfan76]

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...

[JoeMauer89]

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

... I think you are living in a fantasy land. There have been calls for Thomas' impeachment in the press based on the wife's behavior. But even if there weren't I really don't see anything written in this post by MDlax that is out of bounds. It is properly conditioned speculation. Suitable for this or any forum, including in-person interaction. Something about it clearly bothers you, but I think that is your problem, not MDlax's. There is no suggestion of control by MDlax in his post.

I'm living in a fantasy land? You are the king of it? Talk about living in with blinders on. There's a whole world outside this little insular forum. The sooner you realize that, the happy you will be. Take up a hobby or two. Jeez.

Joe

[JoeMauer89]

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...

Thanks for expounding on your thoughts. Was not an attack. You would know if it was one. Just trying to get some clear reasoning out of your thought process here. Much better, than, you want to the court to be more balanced toward your preferably ideology. That's a load of dump. Appreciate it.

Joe

[MDlaxfan76]

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...

Thanks for expounding on your thoughts. Was not an attack. You would know if it was one. Just trying to get some clear reasoning out of your thought process here. Much better, than, you want to the court to be more balanced toward your preferably ideology. That's a load of dump. Appreciate it.

Joe

Joe,
You'd have been better off just saying "sorry, I misunderstood you, shouldn't have attacked".
Not that hard and easily forgiven.

Do I want the Court to be more balanced? Yes.
Do I want it balanced hard left? absolutely not.

I'm concerned that it has been tilted far rightward in ways that will have serious, even extreme impact in many different areas, ways that a less partisan motivated Court simply wouldn't do.

I believe that was the intent of the culture warriors on the right and the large corporate interests to accomplish their preferred objectives. Moreover, this is only because of the refusal to even give Merrick Garland a vote, who would have been confirmed if brought to the floor. Instead we have had three Federalist-scrubbed justices added, instead of two. Or just one had prior precedents (not even including the Garland one) had the Barrett process been held until after the election process and with whoever was then the President. Note that it was already a conservative leaning Court when the Garland move was done.

Power partisan politics, breaking all prior bounds and creating a dramatically tilted Court.

I want more balance. And yes, that means back to center.

Here's the good news, for conservatives and moderates like me: Jackson, who will likely vote more often with the liberal side, is actually quite conservative in her approach to the law, isn't an ideologue at all.

[JoeMauer89]

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...

Thanks for expounding on your thoughts. Was not an attack. You would know if it was one. Just trying to get some clear reasoning out of your thought process here. Much better, than, you want to the court to be more balanced toward your preferably ideology. That's a load of dump. Appreciate it.

Joe

Joe,
You'd have been better off just saying "sorry, I misunderstood you, shouldn't have attacked".
Not that hard and easily forgiven.

Do I want the Court to be more balanced? Yes.
Do I want it balanced hard left? absolutely not.

I'm concerned that it has been tilted far rightward in ways that will have serious, even extreme impact in many different areas, ways that a less partisan motivated Court simply wouldn't do.

I believe that was the intent of the culture warriors on the right and the large corporate interests to accomplish their preferred objectives. Moreover, this is only because of the refusal to even give Merrick Garland a vote, who would have been confirmed if brought to the floor. Instead we have had three Federalist-scrubbed justices added, instead of two. Or just one had prior precedents (not even including the Garland one) had the Barrett process been held until after the election process and with whoever was then the President. Note that it was already a conservative leaning Court when the Garland move was done.

Power partisan politics, breaking all prior bounds and creating a dramatically tilted Court.

I want more balance. And yes, that means back to center.

Here's the good news, for conservatives and moderates like me: Jackson, who will likely vote more often with the liberal side, is actually quite conservative in her approach to the law, isn't an ideologue at all.

It's how I get you to provide clear reasoning behind some of your posts, if that's what it takes, so be it. Thick skin. Agreed, you are a moderate. You would not be considered a conservative in anyway shape or form.

Joe

[MDlaxfan76]

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...

Thanks for expounding on your thoughts. Was not an attack. You would know if it was one. Just trying to get some clear reasoning out of your thought process here. Much better, than, you want to the court to be more balanced toward your preferably ideology. That's a load of dump. Appreciate it.

Joe

Joe,
You'd have been better off just saying "sorry, I misunderstood you, shouldn't have attacked".
Not that hard and easily forgiven.

Do I want the Court to be more balanced? Yes.
Do I want it balanced hard left? absolutely not.

I'm concerned that it has been tilted far rightward in ways that will have serious, even extreme impact in many different areas, ways that a less partisan motivated Court simply wouldn't do.

I believe that was the intent of the culture warriors on the right and the large corporate interests to accomplish their preferred objectives. Moreover, this is only because of the refusal to even give Merrick Garland a vote, who would have been confirmed if brought to the floor. Instead we have had three Federalist-scrubbed justices added, instead of two. Or just one had prior precedents (not even including the Garland one) had the Barrett process been held until after the election process and with whoever was then the President. Note that it was already a conservative leaning Court when the Garland move was done.

Power partisan politics, breaking all prior bounds and creating a dramatically tilted Court.

I want more balance. And yes, that means back to center.

Here's the good news, for conservatives and moderates like me: Jackson, who will likely vote more often with the liberal side, is actually quite conservative in her approach to the law, isn't an ideologue at all.

It's how I get you to provide clear reasoning behind some of your posts, if that's what it takes, so be it. Thick skin. Agreed, you are a moderate. You would not be considered a conservative in anyway shape or form.

Joe

I'll always respond pleasantly, respectfully, and thoroughly if you ask in the same manner. No need to attack or shout.

Yes, I'm not a right wing culture warrior.
Pretty progressive, though not far left, on most culture issues.

But I'm "conservative" in temperament, prefer expertise and institutions over ideologies.
I want thoughtful, rational policy makers to work through thorny problems, together, rather than just throw bricks.

[JoeMauer89]

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...

Thanks for expounding on your thoughts. Was not an attack. You would know if it was one. Just trying to get some clear reasoning out of your thought process here. Much better, than, you want to the court to be more balanced toward your preferably ideology. That's a load of dump. Appreciate it.

Joe

Joe,
You'd have been better off just saying "sorry, I misunderstood you, shouldn't have attacked".
Not that hard and easily forgiven.

Do I want the Court to be more balanced? Yes.
Do I want it balanced hard left? absolutely not.

I'm concerned that it has been tilted far rightward in ways that will have serious, even extreme impact in many different areas, ways that a less partisan motivated Court simply wouldn't do.

I believe that was the intent of the culture warriors on the right and the large corporate interests to accomplish their preferred objectives. Moreover, this is only because of the refusal to even give Merrick Garland a vote, who would have been confirmed if brought to the floor. Instead we have had three Federalist-scrubbed justices added, instead of two. Or just one had prior precedents (not even including the Garland one) had the Barrett process been held until after the election process and with whoever was then the President. Note that it was already a conservative leaning Court when the Garland move was done.

Power partisan politics, breaking all prior bounds and creating a dramatically tilted Court.

I want more balance. And yes, that means back to center.

Here's the good news, for conservatives and moderates like me: Jackson, who will likely vote more often with the liberal side, is actually quite conservative in her approach to the law, isn't an ideologue at all.

It's how I get you to provide clear reasoning behind some of your posts, if that's what it takes, so be it. Thick skin. Agreed, you are a moderate. You would not be considered a conservative in anyway shape or form.

Joe

I'll always respond pleasantly, respectfully, and thoroughly if you ask in the same manner. No need to attack or shout.

Yes, I'm not a right wing culture warrior.
Pretty progressive, though not far left, on most culture issues.

But I'm "conservative" in temperament, prefer expertise and institutions over ideologies.
I want thoughtful, rational policy makers to work through thorny problems, together, rather than just throw bricks.

Fair enough, no one has every accused you of being far left. The Blimp has that all to himself. But you present yourself as a conservative republican sometimes, which you are not. Maybe you once were and Trump changed that for you, fine. But that's the gripe that myself and plenty of others have with your portrayal of your political ideology and worldview.

Joe

[MDlaxfan76]

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...

Thanks for expounding on your thoughts. Was not an attack. You would know if it was one. Just trying to get some clear reasoning out of your thought process here. Much better, than, you want to the court to be more balanced toward your preferably ideology. That's a load of dump. Appreciate it.

Joe

Joe,
You'd have been better off just saying "sorry, I misunderstood you, shouldn't have attacked".
Not that hard and easily forgiven.

Do I want the Court to be more balanced? Yes.
Do I want it balanced hard left? absolutely not.

I'm concerned that it has been tilted far rightward in ways that will have serious, even extreme impact in many different areas, ways that a less partisan motivated Court simply wouldn't do.

I believe that was the intent of the culture warriors on the right and the large corporate interests to accomplish their preferred objectives. Moreover, this is only because of the refusal to even give Merrick Garland a vote, who would have been confirmed if brought to the floor. Instead we have had three Federalist-scrubbed justices added, instead of two. Or just one had prior precedents (not even including the Garland one) had the Barrett process been held until after the election process and with whoever was then the President. Note that it was already a conservative leaning Court when the Garland move was done.

Power partisan politics, breaking all prior bounds and creating a dramatically tilted Court.

I want more balance. And yes, that means back to center.

Here's the good news, for conservatives and moderates like me: Jackson, who will likely vote more often with the liberal side, is actually quite conservative in her approach to the law, isn't an ideologue at all.

It's how I get you to provide clear reasoning behind some of your posts, if that's what it takes, so be it. Thick skin. Agreed, you are a moderate. You would not be considered a conservative in anyway shape or form.

Joe

I'll always respond pleasantly, respectfully, and thoroughly if you ask in the same manner. No need to attack or shout.

Yes, I'm not a right wing culture warrior.
Pretty progressive, though not far left, on most culture issues.

But I'm "conservative" in temperament, prefer expertise and institutions over ideologies.
I want thoughtful, rational policy makers to work through thorny problems, together, rather than just throw bricks.

Fair enough, no one has every accused you of being far left. The Blimp has that all to himself. But you present yourself as a conservative republican sometimes, which you are not. Maybe you once were and Trump changed that for you, fine. But that's the gripe that myself and plenty of others have with your portrayal of your political ideology and worldview.

Joe

mmm, actually I'm conservative fiscally, and an internationalist pro-defense, patriotic Republican. And yeah, that was a big part of the "conservative" GOP.

But I am not a culture warrior, and as the hard right has grown more shrill and whiny over the decades, and as I've lived more years with more exposures to more people and cultures, my heart and mind have evolved to be more progressive than not. It began with the "southern strategy" and so many former segregationist democrats moving to the GOP, overlaid with the Religious Right's excesses, and the Big Tent needed to stretch. So, that positioned me as a "moderate" on relative terms.

And yeah, Trump blew the doors off of any pretense of actual values, it became 100% about power and resentments.

So, by the current definitions, I'm definitely not a hard-right Republican.
I know you don't have that same historical perspective.

[seacoaster]

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

Why on earth is there anything wrong with a polite discussion of when a sitting Supreme Court Justice, 73 years of age, might retire? MDLaxFan and a bunch of us "come off" as speculators, no more and no less. I really wonder why you parachute into these discussions and suggest that the people having the discussion are somehow flawed or immoral.

Thomas's status is newsworthy and discussion-worthy. Thomas is 73; he certainly doesn't appear to anyone who has seen him as the most health conscious guy in the world. His wife is not merely a person active in politics, but is a second generation, ardent culture warrior, who apparently fully supported -- in word, deed and dollar contribution -- the derailing of the Presidential election of 2020, the misuse of power by the Vice President, and the violation of the the Constitution and laws of the United States on January 6, 2021. She has the ear -- every day -- of one of only nine justices of the SC, a court recently hearing cases in which one or two litigants have been trying to quash production of documents relating to the effort to overthrow the election, to incite violence at the Capitol -- something Mrs. Thomas was involved in.

"Jesus you really love to think you can control things you absolutely have ZERO control over." What on earth does this mean? None of us, to my knowledge, have control over Thomas's illness or retirement or marital relations or decision to recuse or not recuse himself from cases in which his spouse has some kind of a material interest.

People interested in the Supreme Court are always talking about the composition of the Court, and therefore who might retire under what President's watch, and under what kind of a Senate. Basic newsworthy stuff -- in person, online, by email and mail, shouting over the fence with my neighbor.

[dislaxxic]

+100

..

[dislaxxic]

CLARENCE THOMAS’ NON-RECUSAL MIGHT HAVE ALSO HIDDEN THE MISSING MARK MEADOWS TEXTS

But the decision that such comms are not privileged means the Committee and DOJ can now address stuff in Meadows’ possession and/or that have been destroyed. As it happened, the Committee has been able to identify Meadows comms in box (E) and possibly even in box (F) via his production: things that should have been archived but were not (this post and this post address the kinds of communications described in Meadows’ contempt referral are in box (E)). It is virtually certain there are a bunch of comms in box (B): stuff Meadows treated as privileged that were not properly archived. Now both the Committee and DOJ can claim those are covered by his contempt. In the process, the Committee or, more likely, DOJ may discover communications involving the former President that should have been archived, proof not just that Meadows is in contempt, but also that he violated the PRA.

The real risk to Meadows, though — and the place where Justice Thomas’ ethical violations could turn into something else — comes in box (C): with comms that, because of the broadness of the original privilege claims, would be treated under Trump’s now defeated privilege claim, but comms that, because Meadows replaced his phone during an ongoing grand jury investigation, the destruction of which might amount to obstruction of that investigation.

What DOJ is doing with other criminal subjects in the January 6 investigation is identifying Signal and Telegram texts that got destroyed on one phone by seizing the phones of others who did not destroy their side of the communication. In the case of Meadows, for example, we’ve already identified a Signal text that seems to remain in Jim Jordan’s custody but that Meadows may no longer have.

Justice Thomas’ failed attempt to uphold Trump’s (and therefore Meadows’) insanely broad privilege claims might have had the effect of making it clear that Meadows had destroyed privileged communications that would be covered by the ongoing January 6 grand jury investigation.

It’s not just embarrassing texts involving his spouse that Justice Thomas could have covered up with his participation in that decision. It is also potential criminal obstruction exposure because Meadows replaced his phone.

Particularly given the big gap in texts in what Meadows turned over between November 24 and January 10, those might be far more important than the crazypants things Ginni said.

..

[jhu72]

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

... I think you are living in a fantasy land. There have been calls for Thomas' impeachment in the press based on the wife's behavior. But even if there weren't I really don't see anything written in this post by MDlax that is out of bounds. It is properly conditioned speculation. Suitable for this or any forum, including in-person interaction. Something about it clearly bothers you, but I think that is your problem, not MDlax's. There is no suggestion of control by MDlax in his post.

I'm living in a fantasy land? You are the king of it? Talk about living in with blinders on. There's a whole world outside this little insular forum. The sooner you realize that, the happy you will be. Take up a hobby or two. Jeez.

Joe

... thank you, got all the hobbies I can afford, I am totally happy. Bless your heart.

[Kismet]

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

... I think you are living in a fantasy land. There have been calls for Thomas' impeachment in the press based on the wife's behavior. But even if there weren't I really don't see anything written in this post by MDlax that is out of bounds. It is properly conditioned speculation. Suitable for this or any forum, including in-person interaction. Something about it clearly bothers you, but I think that is your problem, not MDlax's. There is no suggestion of control by MDlax in his post.

I'm living in a fantasy land? You are the king of it? Talk about living in with blinders on. There's a whole world outside this little insular forum. The sooner you realize that, the happy you will be. Take up a hobby or two. Jeez.

Joe

... thank you, got all the hobbies I can afford, I am totally happy. Bless your heart.

This exchange reminds me how much I didn't miss lectures by Joe while he was in the penalty box for like THREE MONTHS because he doesn't have enough self-control to not continually threaten the admin who runs this place. Next time it will be SIX MONTHS! I think Joe should go for it!!!!!!

[Typical Lax Dad]

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

... I think you are living in a fantasy land. There have been calls for Thomas' impeachment in the press based on the wife's behavior. But even if there weren't I really don't see anything written in this post by MDlax that is out of bounds. It is properly conditioned speculation. Suitable for this or any forum, including in-person interaction. Something about it clearly bothers you, but I think that is your problem, not MDlax's. There is no suggestion of control by MDlax in his post.

I'm living in a fantasy land? You are the king of it? Talk about living in with blinders on. There's a whole world outside this little insular forum. The sooner you realize that, the happy you will be. Take up a hobby or two. Jeez.

Joe

... thank you, got all the hobbies I can afford, I am totally happy. Bless your heart.

A buddy that rolls up local security companies told me about the use of Bless your heart. He can do a stone cold Texas accent.