I guess feigning ignorance is all you have left in your support of trump... Should Justice Thomas recuse in Trump 14th Amendment case because of wife's Jan. 6 role? The case tests the U.S. Supreme Court's recusal rules in its new ethics code. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jus...h-amendment-case-wifes-jan/story?id=106803474 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...nd-why-is-she-important-to-the-jan-6-hearings https://whyy.org/articles/ginni-thomas-says-she-regrets-post-election-texts-to-meadows/ https://apnews.com/article/2022-mid...omas-arizona-9e6929dfc81fa53a9b5f9d70b2ba15e8
you said she was "actively involved in the insurrection". The case before the court involves J6. Please detail how she was "actively involved in the insurrection on J6." TYVM.
I clearly wrote insurrection, not January 6. The insurrection was incited before January 6. Her emails and text messages were clearly intended to encourage overturning the results of the election. btw, she attended the "top the steal" "rally" at the Eclipse on January 6. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/ginni-thomas-attended-stop-the-steal-rally You are welcome.
were all attendees at the rally on January 6 charged with insurrection? or just those who marched on the Capitol? which group did Madame Thomas fall into?
the government actually made the opposite argument during cross, saying that Obstruction was paramount.
maga kavanaugh struggling to differentiate from a president approving military actions and a president engaging in illegal activities to overthrow the democratically elected presidency. He also doesn't seem to know that trump approved more drone strikes that resulted in deaths than Obama did. But ignoring facts to get a political outcome seems to be in maga kavanaugh's wheelhouse. That, and drinking...
I’m going to note that some of the posters applauding the hypothetical that Obama should be prosecuted for drone strikes both forgot they those strikes were authorized under the very broad authorization for use of force in the war on terror. They also supported that authorization and criticized other posters for opposing it.
please explain how that is relevant to the decision in this case. Spoiler which decision has not yet been handed down
I don't find it unbelievable. For whatever reason (we can speculate), they believe in super-charging individual executive powers while disabling the thoughtful, collective powers of a government. The right wing on the USSC has been increasingly consistent: a tyrant president sounds totally in bounds to them; they just don't want a large, systematic tyranny, unless it's put in place by a single tyrant. (*shrugs*, *shakes damn head*)
