State of the Union: Biden-Style

Joe Biden delivered his first State of the Union address tonight.

In a speech that focused on the war in Ukraine before pivoting to domestic challenges, Biden said the American people are ready for the task ahead of them in keeping the world united in the face of autocracy.

“Now is the hour, our moment of responsibility. Our test of resolve and conscience, of history itself. It is in this moment that our character is formed. Our purpose is found. Our future is forged,” Biden said in closing.

“Well, I know this nation. We will meet the test. To protect freedom and liberty, to expand fairness and opportunity. We will save democracy. As hard as these times have been, I am more optimistic about America today than I have been my whole life.”


As to the Ukraine, this sounds like pure Biden:

“Let each of us here tonight in this chamber send an unmistakable signal to Ukraine and to the world. Please rise if you are able and show that, yes, we the United States of America stand with the Ukrainian people.”

As to Putin:

“Putin’s latest attack on Ukraine was premeditated and unprovoked. He rejected repeated, repeated, efforts at diplomacy. He thought the West and NATO wouldn’t respond. He thought he could divide us at home, in this chamber and in this nation. Putin was wrong. We were ready,”

He then described months of preparations with our allies in anticipation of Putin's actions:

“We spent months building a coalition of other freedom-loving nations from Europe and the Americas to Asia and Africa to confront Putin. I spent countless hours unifying our European allies. We shared with the world in advance what we knew Putin was planning and precisely how he would try to falsely justify his aggression. We countered Russia’s lies with truth. And now that he has acted the free world is holding him accountable.”

He then announced to the Oligarchs that we are coming for their yachts.

“Russian oligarchs and corrupt leaders who have bilked billions of dollars off this violent regime no more.”

“We are joining with our European allies to find and seize your yachts, your luxury apartments, your private jets. We are coming for your ill-begotten gains,” he said.

He put the blame for Russia's tanking economing on Putin and Putin alone.

Biden then pivoted to domestic matters, including COVID:

“Thanks to the progress we have made this past year, Covid-19 need no longer control our lives,” he added. “I know some are talking about ‘living with Covid-19.’ Tonight – I say that we will never just accept living with Covid-19. We will continue to combat the virus as we do other diseases. And because this is a virus that mutates and spreads, we will stay on guard.”

After acknowledging Americans are suffering from inflation and don't have enough money to meet their bills, he outlined his planned response.

Biden said his plan to fight inflation would include investing in jobs at home, allowing Americans to get back to work while also making more of the products needed domestically.

“Lower your costs, not your wages. Make more cars and semiconductors in America. More infrastructure and innovation in America. More goods moving faster and cheaper in America. More jobs where you can earn a good living in America. And, instead of relying on foreign supply chains – let’s make it in America,” Biden said.

Those are all good ideas, but they take time. Americans need relief now. In my opinion, another tax-free payment of $1,400 or even better, $2,000. to all Americans, would be better and more effective in the short-run.

< More Than 1,000 Protesters Detained in Russia | Thursday Open Thread: Moving Day >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The introduction (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 10:48:13 AM EST
    was a barn burner.  The fervid description of Putin's invasion, the steps taken and contemplated demonstrated both an administration of competent professionals and impressive workhorses.  It was evident, too, that the president is  the wise and experienced leader of the western alliance.

    Thereafter, it seemed as if the fire department arrived and cooled down the speech's delivery although the substance  deserved an equally fiery presentation.  Accomplishments as well as challenges--not only maintaining but growing the economy in the face of a mutating and deadly virus.  And, despite the fervent efforts of Republicans (including those Supreme Court hacks) to undermine the administration's heroic public heath efforts. An innovative Covid treatment plan deserved underscoring, that of on the spot dispensing of new drugs upon a positive Covid test at a pharmacy.  A sensible plan since these drugs, to be effective, need to be started early.

    The critical issue of inflation did not go unmentioned or unaddressed.  The most evident sign for citizens being gas prices.  The effect of the Russian sanctions could have been reinforced and presented as a price Americans have to bear to stop a despot.  Better higher gas prices that soldiers returning in body bags.  But, best with neither.

    The Build BackBetter human infrastructure bill was smartly presented to the public as its component parts--which are generally popular when not buried under legislative technicalities. Or, scary stories by opponents.

    The finale found steam bringing hopes and aspirations. And, the president's optimism for the SOTU.  For me, I gave thanks that in these difficult days, Joe Biden is Commander in Chief and not TFG.

    No person should be given any position (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 06:56:41 AM EST
    Of responsibility in government if they can not correctly pronounce nuclear

    Stavridis just said at least 2-3 thousand Russias (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 07:22:19 AM EST
    have died so far.  He based it on the Russians less than 500 and the Ukrainians saying 6,000 and pointed out that is more soldiers than the US lost in the entire Afghanistan war.  In one week.

    Yachts Seized (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 12:58:22 PM EST
    Al Raya owed by Alisher Usmanov has been seized by Germany. The Amore Vero allegedly owned by Igor Sechin has been seized by France.


    Someone on another site suggested that they be used to house some of the refugees from Putin's war. While I seriously doubt this would ever happen, the idea appeals to me. Real poetic Justice...for sure.

    Housing (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    refugees on those ships is really a great idea.

    I wonder if (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 06:07:51 PM EST
    President Biden will make a quick, secret visit to Ukraine  and meet  with Zelensky.  Risky, but powerful.

    Good grief. (1.25 / 4) (#3)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 07:24:29 AM EST

    Americans need relief now. In my opinion, another tax-free payment of $1,400 or even better, $2,000. to all Americans, would be better and more effective in the short-run.

    More spending to goose inflation!!!  That would certainly help retirees with good COLAs, but those with out would be up a creek. It is a rare private sector pension that had COLA.

    Who loves deficits? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 10:57:47 AM EST
    The GOP.  They are the ones who put deficits through the roof.  GOP President and GOP Congress spent like fools.

    And, the inflation here is not a demand pull inflation ("goosed by federal spending") but a cost push inflation because of part shortages....caused by Covid.

    The increased cost of cars was caused by a lack of semi-conductors.   Many unfinished cars sat waiting for such parts.   It was not an increase in demand.

    I thought Biden was very shrewd in saying last night that he would rather control costs, instead of wages.  Get the supply chain open and prices will stabilize.    


    Even though our imports of Putin's crude oil have doubled under Biden's watch, thus funding the Ukraine adventure, he refuses to unleash US production. Standing with the Ukrainian people, NOT!


    What's the point (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 10:50:46 AM EST
    of posting your pro-oil positions here?  Most people everywhere, let alone those on this site, acknowledge climate change.   You want to spew more fumes in the atmosphere.

    Oil is a minor issue here.  The Russians have nuclear weapons.  That is what needs minding.  Without nuclear weapons, Putin would have been stopped long ago.


    It's (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 11:37:45 AM EST
    the new talking point for the right to pin the blame on Biden
    "Hit (Putin) where it counts," DeSantis also said. "The problem .... with Biden is that he has stepped on the neck of our domestic energy here in the United States."

    DeSantis also has not criticized Trump for calling Putin a "genius."

    Our resident trolls started on that from the beginning.

    Total fable as usual but that's how they roll.


    However (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 11:42:23 AM EST
    no neck stepping here
    The Florida Republican is refusing to divest the Sunshine state of $300 million in Russian-owned companies - investments it controls - while attacking President Joe Biden on Ukraine and Russia, as The New York Daily News reports.

    Ron DeSantis (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    is one of the most useful idiots Putin ever had. My church's pension fund got rid of any and all Russian investments albeit there were not many since we've been into socially responsible investing for quite a while now.

    Florida is sinking... (none / 0) (#22)
    by desertswine on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 04:35:19 PM EST
    in more ways than one.

    The IPCC report titled AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability was released Monday. Florida media reported on the findings that the state is destined to succumb to irreversible changes that will at some point make Florida uninhabitable.

    Florida lost to climate change permanently and irreversibly reports the IPCC.


    Do you know (none / 0) (#23)
    by ladybug on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 04:47:39 PM EST
    what other governors are doing in terms of divestment, New York for example? The original Daily News article being referenced only cites this:
    Democrats and Republicans alike have taken steps like refusing to sell Russian-made alcohol in state-run liquor stores to protest Putin's invasion.

    DeSantis's point was probably that $300 million in Russian property is a small amount next to what we pay Russia for oil.


    BS (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 11:27:51 AM EST
    The U.S. oil industry is gushing, with record production expected in 2023 as companies try to cash in on high prices

    Did they have to drill in the artic, or the sea bed? Did they have to build pipelines to transport toxic goop so it can be shipped to China?

    Why no it was right here at home

    The EIA attributed much of the expected gains to new wells in the Permian Basin, in West Texas and Southeast New Mexico. The agency said that there were about 220 oil rigs added in the lower 48 states, and 114 of those were in the Permian region.

    The EIA expects that Permian Basin will produce 5.3 million barrels daily in 2022, increasing to 5.7 million barrels the next year.

    Rather than focus the (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 08:44:40 AM EST
    entire conversation on production maybe more consideration should be given to how much US oil companies exports outside of the US.

    But the U.S. exports petroleum, too - and in 2020, for the first time since 1949, the U.S. exported more than it imported - 635,000 barrels per day more.

    US imported 540,000 barrels a day from Russia.  Data suggests the US could eliminate all purchases of Russian oil by reducing the amount we export.


    Since increased profits is only objective (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 11:29:45 AM EST
    of US oil companies, increased production will only result in increased exports. US oil companies can, as the "Drill, baby, drill" crowd, ready admits, get a higher price from exporting oil. They have no reason to lower prices here while world demand will allow them to get higher prices outside of the US market.

    The argument that if we relax regulation to produce more oil it will lower cost here at home does not seem to be working. It is a proven fact that the US has produced more oil. US oil companies has used the increased production to export more oil outside of the US rather than lowering prices here.

    I do not think increasing the US oil companies bottom line is a good excuse to further damage our country.


    Admiral Dennis McGinn on energy independence (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 12:32:41 PM EST
    Passing a bold and far-reaching domestic clean energy policy may be the greatest step we can take right now to ensure both our national and energy security in this time of uncertainty. Rather than a myopic short-term focus on oil and gas, Congress should be thinking about and acting to ramp up renewable energy production as soon as possible and reduce demand by increasing energy efficiency across all sectors of our economy.  

    The only way to reduce the power of oligarchs and dictators fueled by gas and oil is to stop our reliance upon these sources of energy. When we stop needing to buy their products, we stop allowing them to use their fuel as bullying instruments of power and diplomatic leverage. Rapidly expanding our American and allied renewable energy portfolios protects us from dictators, price swings and a continuing fossil fuel driven threat of geopolitical chaos. That is the 21st century definition of true energy and national security,

    The Hill

    The renewable energy industry (none / 0) (#54)
    by ladybug on Sat Mar 05, 2022 at 09:26:06 AM EST
    receives substantial federal funding for its work and the retired vice admiral, as part of this industry, has written an opinion piece in The Hill arguing that we should increase our dependence on renewable energy for our energy security. I certainly don't disagree with that. I posted a link to an alternative view that argues that this will take a lot of time and there are alternatives available to us now. I do not see this as a partisan topic but the comments veered off in that direction. I take your opinions seriously. I think this is a complicated situation that I am trying to understand. We are in a very serious world conflict and oil seems to be an important part.

    Yes, it is complicated since (none / 0) (#37)
    by ladybug on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 12:49:20 PM EST
    we have to balance our energy consumption and security needs with company profits and the environment. It is not just our country's but the world's problem. We all expect that green technology will eventually help. In the meantime, will the tough sanctions on Russia have the desired effect?

    I see that some of the discussion (none / 0) (#55)
    by ladybug on Sat Mar 05, 2022 at 12:40:49 PM EST
    takes place just through positive ratings to comments. It is true that all companies want to make a profit, including the renewable energy companies. The oil companies would want to change their technologies to be less polluting if they can make a profit and some new technologies apparently are better, although that is debatable. Elon Musk has done some good for the green industry, albeit raising other concerns, and even he urges more focus on oil and gas in the immediate situation, which would eat into his bottom line. I guess I am not getting the either-or situation. The debate has become more strident because of the war. The current issue is what we can do right now. There seem to be solutions.

    The link didn't work for me. (none / 0) (#32)
    by ladybug on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 10:20:56 AM EST
    Oil companies export oil because it is more profitable. The argument has been if we produced more by relaxing regulation we could lower costs. Of course, it is a super complex situation because we also have to be careful of long-term environmental effects. New technologies will eventually allow us to clean up the environment. I think that both Republicans and Democrats simplify it with talking points. So I appreciate this discussion.

    Link (none / 0) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 11:03:06 AM EST
    We are going in circles. (none / 0) (#56)
    by ladybug on Sat Mar 05, 2022 at 01:08:21 PM EST
    These figures are from 2020. We don't know what the near future will bring, but we want to cut off oil from Russia, Iran, Saudia Arabia as well as Canada's XL pipeline. What can we replace that with? The Permian Basin?

    You are going in circles (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 05, 2022 at 01:38:56 PM EST
    MOBlue was replying to herself.  She has not replied to you in this thread.

    But you just go on and on like someone is talking to you.


    In replying to myself (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 05, 2022 at 04:05:52 PM EST
    I should say I don't think I actually know MOBlue is a she.

    Not that it matters other than please if necessary excuse my mispronouning you.


    Right. I was responding to (none / 0) (#58)
    by ladybug on Sat Mar 05, 2022 at 02:02:24 PM EST
    the positive ratings that her post generated by thoughtful people, which I take to be part of the discussion. I read the responses to me and the posts not responding to me and the argument seems circular: Oil production is high because oil companies make profits and if we increase production it will just make their profits higher versus if we increase production it will lower prices because there will be more oil. But it is complicated by supply and demand. We are going in that circle. We want to stop the flow from Russia, etc. and there is a current oil crisis due to geopolitics. This is not a partisan issue.

    To minimize Russian oil income (1.50 / 2) (#18)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 03:04:22 PM EST
    We should be maximizing petroleum production for export. Good jobs here and added revenue for the feds.

    Fights inflation.
    Hurts Putin.
    Increases good job employment.
    Generates tax revenue.
    Reduces European NATO's dependence on Russian oil and gas.
    No wonder Putin supporters hate it.


    Talk to the oil companies (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 06:49:18 PM EST
    They're the ones that dropped production when oil prices tanked after COVID.

    Southeast New Mexico (none / 0) (#13)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 12:03:28 PM EST
    Too bad.  It is really an extension of the Permian basin, I think.

    US production (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 01:42:19 PM EST
    is at its high. The fact that most conservatives are ignorant on the subject of energy is pretty typical. However would you be wiling to pay more at the pump for a free Ukraine? I know I would but most conservatives are selfish & self centered and once it happens will whine to the skies. Remember after all it's the conservatives who empowered Putin.

    It is high (none / 0) (#28)
    by ladybug on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 08:15:28 AM EST
    but Forbes makes the case we could do more. It says

    I hit the wrong key. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ladybug on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 08:18:52 AM EST
    Forbes says
    Biden can continue to beg Saudi Arabia to pump more oil. Or he can make peace with the domestic oil and gas sector and call on it to increase output and deflate a geopolitical risk premium that has ballooned to add up to $15 to the price of a barrel of oil.

    Perhaps Biden will reconsider since he said

    And, instead of relying on foreign supply chains - let's make it in America," Biden said.

    Couple of thing about that (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 08:30:52 AM EST
    here's a link

    That was written by the CEO of Canary LLC

    Canary, LLC has grown right along with the energy industry and lived through the boom--and not so boom-times. We provide comprehensive oilfield drilling and production services for companies of all sizes throughout the United States. Our customers rely on our cutting-edge technology and hard-won experience to help them produce domestic energy efficiently--and profitably.


    That was written 6 days ago and says this-

    An increasingly erratic Putin may opt to wield the energy weapon himself and cut off flows to Europe. While that would hurt Russian export revenues, Moscow has socked away $640 billion in foreign currency reserves in recent years, perhaps with this moment in mind.

    That money has been frozen.

    Just correcting the.
    you can have the last word.  I will not be sucked I to a silly pointless exchange with you.


    That's fine. (none / 0) (#33)
    by ladybug on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    I'm not sure what you are correcting though. Oil companies exist to make profits, no argument. Putin can make even more damage than he currently is, no argument. Even more alarming than an economic war is the threat of nuclear war. Petty disagreements are meaningless if that happens.

    "Forbes" says no such thing (none / 0) (#41)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 04:47:23 PM EST
    It's literally an opinion piece from an oil tycoon (and major Republican/Trump donor.

    Good thing you're an "independent" who's trying to be objective.



    OK. Present a good argument and (none / 0) (#42)
    by ladybug on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 06:08:39 PM EST
    I'll listen to it too even though it is your opinion. It is easier to make ad hominum attacks though. BTW, what is "literally" an opinion piece? Arguments usually support opinions.

    I looked again and it is not (none / 0) (#43)
    by ladybug on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 06:16:40 PM EST
    marked "opinion" although some articles are so marked. He's just a "contributor." I try to just respond to substantive comments here, but personal attacks should probably be addressed.

    What "personal attacks"? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 04, 2022 at 04:27:02 PM EST
    That's just my "commentary".

    Hahahahahahahaha (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 06:47:32 PM EST
    Tell us you don't know how oil prices affect oil production (especially domestic production), without telling us you don't know how oil prices affect oil production.

    Domestic oil production dropped because the price of oil tanked when COVID hit.  It had absolutely nothing to do with an imaginary "war on US energy production", which is as fake as your imaginary "War on Christmas!"


    "The Ukraine adventure." (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 10, 2022 at 10:25:35 AM EST
    If there's but one trope that neatly sums up just how jarringly tone-deaf you are on the subject current events, it's that one. The rest of what you offer was copied and pasted from Betty's Republican Book of Boiler Plate.

    You might get your wish (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 09:31:18 AM EST

    White House Mulls Sanctions on Russia Oil Exports
    March 2, 2022 at 10:10 am EST By Taegan Goddard 47 Comments

    "The possibility of the U.S. sanctioning Russian oil exports is `still on the table' as President Biden looks for more ways to punish the country for its invasion of Ukraine," CNN reports.

    "Taking such a step would be an extraordinary measure that could have an intense effect on domestic gas prices, however."

    Then you can irrationally pi$$ and moan about gas prices.

    Biden should do this.


    I wonder (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 09:52:31 AM EST
    could they offset this at all by temporarily dropping some or all gas taxes?

    I (none / 0) (#14)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    think everyone should stop buying Russian oil and every oil producing country should max production and the global oil companies forego their profit for a month or two and it's over. Yeah a boy can dream.

    Yes, this (none / 0) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    is a good option.  There have been "gas tax holidays" in the past for different reasons,  Apparently, the drawback is that the tax is taken off and then replaced it comes across as a new tax increase.

    Increasing production (none / 0) (#19)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 03:05:57 PM EST
    Lowers price without giving up tax revenue.

    It's (none / 0) (#21)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 03:25:33 PM EST
    a lot more than than pumping more oil out of the ground, oil companies can do that anytime they just wait until the price is right on the world market.

    Gasoline supply is actually limited by refining capacity anyway and big oil does not like to build excess capacity so prices will always rise in booming economy. Tack on the extra cost of oil(seemingly before they are shelling out that money)and the consumer is screwed.


    Increasing production (none / 0) (#20)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 03:06:31 PM EST
    Lowers price without giving up tax revenue.

    Predictable (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 07:10:11 AM EST
    I did not watch the whole thing but I saw the beginning and the end.  Both worked for me

    Dan Pfeiffer (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 07:35:38 AM EST
    It would have helped him, (none / 0) (#44)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Mar 04, 2022 at 03:35:05 PM EST
    ...if he left out the lie than the firearms industry is the only one that can't be sued.

    Funny stuff (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 04, 2022 at 04:31:06 PM EST
    Republicans pretending to be outraged by "lies!" after sitting silent for the past four years, including outright conspiracy theories and COVID lies that killed thousands.



    This is an honest question (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 04, 2022 at 03:43:28 PM EST
    Who else can't be sued?  To much trouble to look.

    It's a lie on two counts (2.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Mar 05, 2022 at 09:26:01 PM EST

    1. Firearms companies have been sued. They just can't be sued for the criminal misuse of the product.

    2. Good luck trying to sue the vaccine maker if the jab injured your heart with myocarditis.

    No, it is not a "lie" (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 06, 2022 at 10:52:18 AM EST
    1. Firearms manufacturers lobbied for and obtained special protection from lawsuits that other products do not have. No one can sue anyone -- not successfully, anyway -- just because a product was used to commit a crime. There has to be be some actionable negligence on the manufacturer's part, typically in the design. Unlike other product manufacturers, firearms companies are protected even if a feature of the product (or a refusal to add a feature) directly facilitated its criminal misuse.  
    2. Because there is a longstanding no-fault National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

    Point one is mistaken. (2.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Mar 06, 2022 at 03:25:18 PM EST

    If you buy a bolt action rifle and the first time you shoot it the bolt flys out (defective manufacture) and cuts your face, the manufacturer is not shielded.

    On point 2. We are in agreement, you cannot sue.  Period. The fact that there is some minimal compensation available does not change that.


    Point 3 (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 04:21:22 PM EST
    The usefulness/utility offered to society FAR outweighs the utility of assault weapons designed to make insecure men compensate for their own inadequacies and live out their hero fantasies.

    Science (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 08, 2022 at 02:55:42 PM EST

    In the first six months after the release of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, 298 million doses were given in the United States. An assessment of their side effects reveals reactions were overwhelmingly mild and brief. The findings may not be surprising, and are unlikely to change anti-vaxxers' minds, but are important in the context of the mRNA vaccines under development for conditions such as cancer and HIV.

    The finding coincides with research showing even mild cases of COVID-19 itself can damage the brain far more than any vaccine.



    And speaking of science (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Peter G on Sat Mar 12, 2022 at 06:36:12 PM EST
    a study of numerous school districts encompassing more than a million children shows that districts with mandatory masking of students experienced 72% fewer cases of COVID19 than districts that made wearing masks optional.

    Sorry if this was a gotcha question (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 05, 2022 at 07:49:32 AM EST
    It was not meant to be.

    Apparently the rights panties are in a bunch (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 05, 2022 at 08:12:30 AM EST
    about this because Pfizer and Moderna were protected from lawsuits.  Presumably to speed the release of vaccines.  If someone is "harmed" by the vaccines they can still be compensated by the government.



    Yes, there is a federal vaccine injury (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Peter G on Sat Mar 05, 2022 at 08:20:01 AM EST
    compensation system, that supplants the ordinary right to sue. Like workers' comp. Not parallel to the protection that federal law gives to gun manufacturers from liability for injuries resulting from the use of their products. I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of any other inherently dangerous product that has such across-the-board protection from liability. Certainly not automobiles, for example.

    Automobiles (none / 0) (#62)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Mar 05, 2022 at 09:39:08 PM EST

    Do you think the car company should be sued that made the vehicle used in Wisconsin recently to kill those parading grandmas?

    The reason there is no federal shield for automobile, knife, rope, gasoline, etc., manufacturers is that unlike firearm manufacturers they are not the target of suits blaming the manufacturer for the criminal misuse of the product.


    Automobile manufacturers are sued (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 06, 2022 at 12:03:13 PM EST
    all the time on account of injuries resulting from misuse of cars by drivers, some characterized as pure accidents and others as criminal conduct (drunk driving, running a red light, speeding, etc.), but only when the design of the vehicle contributed to the nature or extent of the resulting injuries. Not aware of any such circumstances in the Wisconsin incident.

    The vehicle design did contribute (2.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Mar 06, 2022 at 03:15:46 PM EST

    The top speed of the vehicle contributed. Likewise the rate of acceleration. Ditto the weight and width.  Etc.

    Same goes for those who are killed or injured by knives that are designed to be sharp.


    STOP (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 08, 2022 at 11:24:54 AM EST
    using the mass murder at our parade. Our parade in my town, our parade where I took my kids -- and almost took my grandkids that day. I knew victims, I know survivors, some still in recovery.

    Your games her often are apallint but now are disgusting. Stop.


    Interesting idea (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 04:18:47 PM EST
    I expect the kitty will increase

    Russian Businessman Puts $1 Million Bounty on Putin
    March 3, 2022 at 5:05 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 65 Comments

    Russian businessman Alex Konanykhin has placed a $1 million bounty on Vladimir Putin's head and urged the country's military officers to arrest him, The Independent reports.

    This seems bad (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 04, 2022 at 05:45:39 PM EST
    Roscosmos, Russia's space agency, will no longer cooperate with Germany on science experiments aboard the Russian side of the International Space Station (ISS), it said in a tweet Thursday.

    "The Russian space program will be adjusted against the backdrop of sanctions, the priority will be the creation of satellites in the interests of defense," Roscosmos said in the tweet.

    Russia will instead continue the experiments independently, it said in the same tweet.

    Roscosmos will also stop delivering Russian rocket engines to the US, and will stop servicing those it already delivered, per a tweet.


    Small potatoes (none / 0) (#49)
    by BGinCA on Fri Mar 04, 2022 at 11:34:09 PM EST
    Not really the bad part (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 05, 2022 at 07:49:00 AM EST
    In my opinin

    Probably smart (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 05, 2022 at 04:09:27 PM EST

    U.S. Officials Travel to Venezuela
    March 5, 2022 at 5:27 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 2 Comments

    "Senior U.S. officials are traveling to Venezuela on Saturday to meet with the government of President Nicolás Maduro, as the Biden administration steps up efforts to separate Russia from its remaining international allies amid a widening standoff over Ukraine," the New York Times reports.

    "The trip is the highest-level visit by Washington officials to Caracas, Venezuela's capital, in years."

    Bribe him.

    If you tell a lie enough.... (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2022 at 05:56:15 PM EST
    this has eerie parallels to like in these United States

    Ukrainians Find Relatives in Russia Don't Believe It's War
    March 6, 2022 at 3:11 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 201 Comments

    New York Times: "As Ukrainians deal with the devastation of the Russian attacks in their homeland, many are also encountering a confounding and almost surreal backlash from family members in Russia, who refuse to believe that Russian soldiers could bomb innocent people, or even that a war is taking place at all."

    "These relatives have essentially bought into the official Kremlin position: that President Vladimir Putin's army is conducting a limited `special military operation' with the honorable mission of `de-Nazifying' Ukraine."

    When this started (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2022 at 06:03:10 PM EST
    I was thinking this won't work.  Russia is not North Korea.  But this.....

    It (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 03:45:25 PM EST
    just doesn't seem possible that there is that much of  an information blackout when you can seemingly call people in Russia from Ukraine and elsewhere.

    Beware of anecdotes especially in wartime, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence showing that there is plenty of people who do know what is happening.


    Downside (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 03:27:00 PM EST
    to shutting Russia out of social media I guess.

    It's just a guess (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 03:42:55 PM EST
    but I would bet that the de-nazification segment of the Russian population is not that different from the Bill Gates will chip you and make you sterile group in the US.

    I don't think it's that hard to know what's really happening.  They still have the internet the last I heard.  Maybe not FB but YouTube.  


    Well (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 05:49:58 PM EST
    you would think that the soldiers calling home from Ukraine would convince a few but again it's the same thing over there as here. Sad. Makes me wonder if the human race is going to survive much longer.

    Watch out for this guy (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 01:08:43 PM EST
    He is more dangerous than you think.

     Cotton to Compare Trump and Reagan In Big Speech
    March 7, 2022 at 10:34 am EST By Taegan Goddard 184 Comments

    Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) "is expected to argue in a high-profile speech Monday evening that presidents Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump share common roots in the Republican Party and that those who suggest the GOP must pick a path that embraces one or the other are wrong," the Wall Street Journal reports.

    "Mr. Cotton, a possible 2024 presidential candidate, is the latest Republican invited to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California as part of a speakers series on the party's future following its loss of the White House, Senate and House during Mr. Trump's tenure in office."

    Maybe I'm wrong (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 02:18:48 PM EST
    but I see what Cotton is doing as tarnishing the carefully crafted (and mostly untrue) legacy of Reagan. I am sure that is not his intent. I have seen a lot of push back here on this. Just my 2 cents but I think Cotton is trying to unify a very fractured party. I don't think that fracture can be rectified from my experience. The crack up of the GOP has been over 30 years in coming.

    I hope you are right (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 02:27:25 PM EST
    I really do.

    I (none / 0) (#72)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 03:12:12 PM EST
    wouldn't bet on it
    Former Attorney General Bill Barr has been called "lazy" and "cowardly" by former President Donald Trump, while Barr has described Trump as "off the rails" and called his push to discredit the 2020 election "a farce."

    Yet despite the ugly back and forth between the two, Barr said on TODAY Monday that he would still vote for Trump in the 2024 presidential election if Trump becomes the Republican nominee.

    "Because I believe that the greatest threat to the country is the progressive agenda being pushed by the Democratic Party, it's inconceivable to me that I wouldn't vote for the Republican nominee,"

    Well (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 03:22:00 PM EST
    I'm not talking about toadies like Bill Barr. The fact that he would vote for Trump should surprise exactly no one. I am talking about the ones that left over 1/6. I know a couple of these. They think Reagan is God and Trump is trailer trash.

    Equally delusional (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 03:44:26 PM EST
    Reagan is God and Trump is trailer trash.

    Yeah, I agree (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 03:49:37 PM EST
    but they have left the GOP over Trump. Honestly it really is kind of funny. The only problem I see is they might not vote for national GOP candidates but they will vote for someone like Brian Kemp. But Brian Kemp also has other problems.

    Its a lifetime (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 03:50:42 PM EST
    To 2024.

    Yes, but (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 05:51:50 PM EST
    dayum who would have thought the senate would be campaigning on ending Obamacare, Medicare and Social security within 5 years in 2022? I would never have guessed the GOP would be that stupid but here we are.

    Well, at least (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 03:45:30 PM EST
    they are half right.

    I object to Trump being elevated to trailer trash (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 03:49:58 PM EST
    On behalf of all trailer trash and the people who love them.

    Sorry about that (none / 0) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 07:59:29 PM EST
    Different experiences. In my mind, there are people who live in trailers who are so far above Trump and his ilk. OTOH, there are bottom feeders like Trump, who may or may not live in trailers.

    Then, again there are bottom feeders who claim to live in trailers, who do not.


    An entertaining and scathing review (none / 0) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 04:32:38 PM EST
    of Bill Barr's book, and of Bill Barr,  "One Damn Thing After Another", by NYtimes' Jennifer Szalai.

    Barr is really a sad and dangerous person. As bad as Trump is, and he tells us so--a lot of  "madcap" rhetoric", but Trump has "a deep intuitive appreciation of the importance of religion to the health of our nation."  


    Trump (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 05:47:39 PM EST
    sees religion as important only in that it makes an obvious grift for him.

    This is a great question (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 05:42:20 PM EST
    After what has been done it's hard to imagine lifting sanctions unless Putin steps aside but this could be the way out.  Sadly.

    Putin Is Running Out of Options
    March 7, 2022 at 6:33 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 73 Comments

    Lawrence Freedman: "We are left contemplating the psychology of the man who launched this catastrophic adventure and must now decide whether to call it off with whatever face-saving claims he can muster. We wonder whether when he claims his war plan is on schedule and is meeting its goals is a continuation of his past delusions, because the sycophants around him don't know how to tell him the truth, or because he does not know how to admit to the Russian people how badly he has let them down, especially after he has gone to extreme lengths to hide the truth from them."

    "He is now engaging in more conversations with international leaders, the latest being with Israeli prime Minister Naftali Bennett, so perhaps he is starting to look for a diplomatic way out."

    "It is possible to slide away from defeat by claiming victory against more realistic goals. After all Saddam Hussein led Iraq into two disastrous wars - when he invaded Iran in 1980 and seized Kuwait a decade later. At the end of both, with nothing to show for all the consequential death and destruction, he nonetheless claimed victory because somehow, he had personally managed to survive in power. As Putin is forced to move away from his maximum aims will that minimum one also come to be his priority?"

    I certainly hope (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 05:56:59 PM EST
    that Goddard is on to something here.

    Sadly (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 07:57:50 PM EST
    indeed, another war criminal walks.

    I wouldn't trust him anyway, a good part of his offensive has stalled and he is having major if not fatal logistics problem.

    I suspect he is just trying to buy time.


    If that is the outcome (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 08:11:58 PM EST
    I hope that at least they don't give him an inch of territory.  That's the talk now.  Give me some territory and I'll go away.

    He should have to slink back with nothing but the contempt of the world for his trouble.  At least.


    we (none / 0) (#92)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 07, 2022 at 08:21:06 PM EST
    force him to sell his oil for half price for next 10 years, use the other half to rebuild Ukraine.

    This (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 08, 2022 at 07:25:20 AM EST
    It does seem that every day every hour this continues makes stopping more complicated.

    Terrifying Paradox of Russian Weakness
    March 8, 2022 at 7:56 am EST By Taegan Goddard 84 Comments

    Gerard Baker: "It already seems that a possibly inconclusive struggle for Ukraine is a likely outcome, but history suggests there are only two alternatives for the Russian leader--a victory of some sort, at any cost, or the collapse of his regime."

    "This lesson emphasizes the peril for all of us. We watch in awe the bravery of the Ukrainian people in resisting Russian aggression. But the stakes for Mr. Putin are so high that they create a terrifying paradox of Russian weakness: The longer the fight goes on, the greater his incentive to escalate. The fear of full nuclear war may be overdone, but we are already a couple of rungs up the ladder that leads to it."

    Best (none / 0) (#94)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 08, 2022 at 10:33:25 AM EST
    case scenario is Putin getting offed by some rival faction.

    I am pretty clueless to the Russian power structure but it always got the impression it was somewhat resembled organized crime, with each oligarch being the head of his own "family" who flourish as long as the pay their dues to the Putin the Godfather.

    I am not sure how loyal the army is, but it seems to me that they might not be too interested in bailing Putin out.


    Tightropes are being walked (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2022 at 09:02:54 PM EST
    Cause - effect (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 23, 2022 at 01:39:47 PM EST

    Former President Donald Trump in a statement: "I am hereby withdrawing my Endorsement of Mo Brooks for the Senate."

    Explained Trump: "When I endorsed Mo Brooks, he took a 44-point lead and was unstoppable. He then hired a new campaign staff who `brilliantly' convinced him to `stop talking about the 2020 Election. Very sad but, since he decided to go in another direction, so have I."

    Brookes statement

    President Trump asked me to rescind the 2020 elections, immediately remove Joe Biden from the White House, immediately put President Trump back in the White House, and hold a new special election for the presidency. As a lawyer, I've repeatedly advised President Trump that January 6 was the final election contest verdict and neither the U.S. Constitution nor the U.S. Code permit what President Trump asks. Period.

    I've told President Trump the truth knowing full well that it might cause President Trump to rescind his endorsement

    I think Putin's plan included (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 08:57:44 AM EST
    thousands of dead Russian soldiers.  I think he hoped it would help get the country behind him for when he would wrap it up with some kind of mass destruction justified by the many dead.

    Another miscalculation.  IMO.

    Really sick of hearing (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 09:06:34 AM EST
    stupid lazy bobbleheads gab about how strange it is that in times of national crisis republican presidents always enjoy high approval numbers but Biden does not.  So of course that is Bidens fault.

    The reason is simple.  Half the country is going to root for our country in a crisis and half will not unless a republican is in charge.  This is a simple obvious fact but I have not heard it from a talking head.

    The racism of the (none / 0) (#103)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 12:13:59 PM EST
    Republican senators during the confirmation hearings was astonishing.  The hoods are off!  And, the anti-gay, homophobia was also on display.

    Senator Cornyn of Texas launched an attack on Obergefell--all those unenumerated rights in the Constituion--are on the chopping block.  And, then there are the states efforts (Florida, don't say gay; TX, illegal for school district to have a Pride celebration, TX, treatment of trans children is child abuse by parents)  

    Conflating of gay with "grooming"---code for pedophilia, as stated by the Florida governor's spokesperson. And Judge Jackson as a protector of child porn. The Republicans are going full sex wars again.  Republicans equate with QAnon and accept their conspiracies. They are not a legitimate political party, they are a fascist party.

    Trans is bad since they do not understand it.  I doubt that they understand quantum mechanics, but it is a real thing.  Republicans are coming for every gay person.  And, people of color, if they do not climb aboard the Talibangelical bandwagon.

    Judge Jackson is unlikely to get one vote on the Judiciary Committee (22 members, 11 R and 11 D) requiring Senator Schumer to use a special procedure to move the nomination to the floor.  And, then my guess is that she will be confirmed by all Democrats, the Vice President, and maybe, just maybe, one or two Republican senators.  

    IMO (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 02:04:46 PM EST
    This is a very short sighted path the Republicans are taking.  Clearly for them it's all about the election in the fall.  Well, and the next prez election also but I think mostly the fall.  It might work better than we would like in the short term.  But I don't think it's a very wise plan for the longer view.  Or even for the next presidential election.

    That was embarrassing even for many republican officeholders.

    Plus, they have kind of always been coming after us.  I think this was the death rattle of a dying party.

    Pandering to Q is not a smart move.


    Also bad for them (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 02:24:34 PM EST
    because she was so good.  She sat patiently and listened to fools like Graham and Hawley prove what fools they are.  This performance was for the 30%.  And it probably worked.  For the 30%.

    Hope you are (none / 0) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 02:34:19 PM EST
    right.   The child porn lies must be working since more Republican senators glommed onto it.  Started with Hawley. And progressed to Grassley today.  Republicans seem to fixate on sex , permutations and how they can legally control same. All judgmental and with seemingly prurient interest.

    The Republican senators, unsurprisingly, went to their customary playbook in smearing Judge Jackson.  Take the strengths and try to convert them to weaknesses.  --take the judge's long and distinguished trial experience and turn into a liability.  Cherry picking one case that gets attention,  think of the children.  


    Primaries (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 02:58:43 PM EST
    many are worried about primaries

    The homophobia, trans issues kiddy porn etc, is only going to work another cycle or two, they are dying off fast.  Milk it while you can.

    True there will still be phobics.  Not enough to win elections.


    The thing (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 03:07:42 PM EST
    is she was following sentencing guidelines. Those people have been in the senate for decades and saw nothing wrong with the sentencing guidelines. They also seemed to be way too comfortable talking about KP. It really creeped me out.

    So, actually, no. She was following (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 04:41:43 PM EST
    the sentencing statute, as written by Congress, which authorized her -- in her sound discretion, after considering about a dozen individualized factors -- to "vary" from the (ridiculous, overly severe, and irrational) Sentencing Guidelines, as drafted by the Sentencing Commission (in some respects, at Congress's direction; but still, in the end, by the Commission). Those Guidelines are just that: advisory at best. She varied downward from them in possession- (or receiving)- of-CP cases, as about 70% of all federal judges do, because the judges are not (on the whole) vicious animals, like so many U.S. Senators. What the statute requires, in each and every case (unless overridden by a "mandatory minimum"), is that the judge impose the sentence that she finds to be "sufficient, but not greater than necessary" to accomplish all the various and sometimes conflicting purposes of criminal sentencing.

    On a different subject (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 04:52:16 PM EST
    I've been reading about the resignation letter from the NY prosecutor.  

    Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's decision not to seek an indictment against Donald Trump was "misguided and completely contrary to the public interest," said a prosecutor who probed the ex-president for almost three years.

    Mark Pomerantz made the stunning declaration in his resignation letter to Bragg on Feb. 23 that was published Wednesday by the New York Times.

    What do you think if my theory that this was done, spiking this nvestigatin,  because the DOJ with the help of the J6 committee is planning to indict Trump for something much bigger like racketeering and/or conspiracy.  And this indictment might have interfered or hindered that?


    Alvin Bragg (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 05:11:40 PM EST
    Has not publicly presented reasons  leaving discussions to speculations,    While AG Garland has been criticize-- essentially be accused of sleeping at the switch, it difficult to fathom that Trump's actions both before, during, and after his term of office, are going uninvestigated.  I like your theory.  Racketeering charges are complex and take time.

    It will (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 03:10:47 PM EST
    be interesting to see what happens in November but personally I think this is more about playing to the presidential primary voters.

    Maybe Judge Jackson should have sexually harassed someone and had 4500 criminal complaints against her to get a Republican to vote for her.


    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 04:33:20 PM EST
    and the judge did not say she liked a beer with Squi and Boof.  I agree, too, that the kiddie porn caucus was creepy.  Almost. Like thou protesth too much kind of vib.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 04:38:26 PM EST
    most people thought it was creepy.  It was creepy.

    Genni & Mark (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 05:26:38 PM EST
    John Roberts (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 05:47:12 PM EST
    now knows he has a problem if he did not already. Is he gonna try to do anything? I know the GOP would certainly be fine with a treason weasel on the supreme court. The Federalist Society has turned the supreme court into trash and delegitimatized the institution.

    I wonder what has kept Justice Thomas (none / 0) (#118)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 07:24:43 PM EST
    in the hospital all week, when the initial announcement was that he was expected to be out on Monday of this week. It is just possible that he is more ill than he (or we) had realized. He is a 73-year-old, heavy-set Black man who grew up poor(ish) in the South. Fact is, he faces a shorter life expectancy than Neil Gorsuch, for example.
       I will say, however, that I do not attribute a Justice's spouse's political activities, no matter how looney, to the Justice. Embarrassing, yes. Lacking in judgment, yes, considering the appearances. But Ginni Thomas is a separate and independent person. I do not think she is his puppet (or vice versa).

    More than (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 08:36:32 AM EST
    "Political activities", in my view, when toggling with the Chief of staff of the president of the United States to overturn the election and the government.

    It is more likely that the Thomases are cohorts than not. More than embarrassing, although it is surely that, more than poor judgment, although it is clearly that.  This is corruption. Justice  Thomas should resign.  It may be that Thomas is very sick, but another possibility is that he is hiding.  He surely knew this story would soon hit the media, the story was likely given to him in advance for reaction.  


    Hiding (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 08:45:34 AM EST
    He knows he will have to respond to this.  Surely.

    Maybe. (none / 0) (#127)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 08:54:10 AM EST
    Thomas is banking on American's attention span being that of a goldfish.  Let it cool down.  Hiding in a hospital is an old one.

    Now if the J6 Committee invites Ginni and Clarence to clear things up.  


    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 01:40:15 PM EST
    being a black man I thought the same thing and perhaps he has diabetes with his race and age.

    More like team mate not puppet (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 24, 2022 at 07:35:48 PM EST

    In particular, Carpenter noted, Thomas needs to clarify why he was the only member of the Supreme Court to vote against dismissing former President Donald Trump's challenge to the National Archives turning over these communications to Congress in the first place -- which raises the possibility that his ruling was at least in part to shield his wife from investigation.



    Justice Thomas's votes as lone dissenter (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 09:31:10 AM EST
    are consistent with his voting record and judicial philosophy over many years, although also consistent with a more sinister interpretation. Just yesterday, he was the only Justice to dissent from the Chief Justice's 8-1 decision holding that a Texas death row prisoner probably had a religious liberty right to have his pastor with him at the time of execution, and to be able both to "lay hands on" (touch) him as he died and to pray audibly. Texas argued they could deny this to the condemned prisoner who had exhausted all appeals. That's how far to the right of the other reactionaries Thomas can be as a judge.

    BFFs (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 07:56:06 AM EST
    Here's a rosy scenario (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 08:29:22 AM EST
    From deep left field.

    Imagine this.  Thomas has been in the hospital. As P notes, longer than it was said he would be.

     This is a shocking  thing.  The stuff in these texts are absolutely the craziest of the crazy.  And the most stunning part IMO is that she appears to believe it completely.

    You can see right through most like Meadows that it's a game.  Meadows appeal to help from Jesus, King of Kings, to help overthrow the election reads like sarcasm at her expense to me.  But not her.  She believes.

    So, what if Thomas either chooses or is called on to resign because of his involvement in this.  I mean, come on, he was the one sole dissenter right down the line.  What if she becomes involved in the J6 hearings.

    Anyway, it would be one kind of hell if he, Thomas, just died and Biden got to replace him.  

    It would be a whole other kind of hell if he was forced to resign.

    And Biden got to replace him.  There would be violence from Q world.

    I'm not really expecting this but if the last few years has taught us anything it would be to not say it's impossible.


    Yes, it would (none / 0) (#125)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 08:48:21 AM EST
    be quite the arc.  Thomas was confirmed when Biden was Chair of the Judiciary Committee, although he voted against him in Committee and on the floor, and then to accept his resignation and nominate a replacement.

    Agreed, too, that the confirmation hearings for a successor would be nasty to the nth degree.  Judge Jackson's hearing would be like a walk in the park.  If not the age factor, a nominee might be Anita Hill.

    And, the spouse of the nominee would be a target.  They Republican senator from Indiana attempted a spousal dig for  Judge Jackson, it seems.  Calling into question the Loving decision , taking it back claiming he did not understand the question asked, although the questioner asked twice.  Maybe, he forgot about Ginni and Clarence.


    IMO, it would be improbable to the point (none / 0) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 09:29:56 AM EST
    of impossible that Thomas would resign or be forced to resign. Republicans rarely resign no matter their crime(s). I don't envision him ever even recusing himself for anything that is a conflict of interest. Since he has a choice, it will IMO give him great pleasure to choose to ignore any ethical restraints on his power. I can see him and his best friend having a good chuckle over the issue.

    I agree (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 10:05:17 AM EST
    See 'in your face' comment below.  But I do think this might as the say have legs.

    They were just talking about how, because of separation of powers, the only person who can say or do anything about this is John Roberts.

    And I agree his no vote is entirely consistent with his rep and past decisions.


    Bob Woodward just said (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 10:10:22 AM EST
    the question now is will Liz subpoena her.

    It really is.


    I don't know whether Congressional committees (none / 0) (#141)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 10:49:51 AM EST
    follow the Federal (Courts) Rules of Evidence, but if they do, the only question the committee can ask on this is whether her reference to "best friend" was to her husband. If so, the conversation is privileged and except in very unusual and extreme circumstances she cannot be compelled to discuss it.

    Have you seen the texts (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 10:55:37 AM EST
    there is a lot of stuff in there they might want to discuss that has nothing to do with her best friend.

    It would be stunning if they subpoenaed her.

    The texts, to the president's chief of staff, are stunning also.


    The texts (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 10:59:44 AM EST
    that among other things are calling for nullification of the election and the arrest of Biden and he supporters are all sent after the election was decided.

    To me this seems very different than saying the same things before the election.


    The difference between (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 11:00:59 AM EST
    political activism and sedition.

    From Playbook (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 11:31:39 AM EST
    aPo's Bob Woodward and CBS' Robert Costa landed an explosive story that dominated D.C. chatter Thursday night: a series of text messages revealing that conservative activist VIRGINIA "GINNI" THOMAS, the wife of Justice CLARENCE THOMAS, "repeatedly pressed White House chief of staff MARK MEADOWS to pursue unrelenting efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election ... in the critical weeks following the vote."

    What the text messages reveal: "The messages, which do not directly reference Justice Thomas or the Supreme Court, show for the first time how Ginni Thomas used her access to Trump's inner circle to promote and seek to guide the president's strategy to overturn the election results -- and how receptive and grateful Meadows said he was to receive her advice. Among Thomas's stated goals in the messages was for lawyer SIDNEY POWELL, who promoted incendiary and unsupported claims about the election, to be `the lead and the face' of Trump's legal team."

    Among the highlights from the article:

    Thomas suggested Biden, his allies and journalists at mainstream outlets be sent to Gitmo: "In the Nov. 5 message to Meadows, Thomas went on to quote a passage that had circulated on right-wing websites: `Biden crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators (elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship mongers, fake stream media reporters, etc) are being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days, & will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition.'"

    She trafficked in far-right conspiracy theory videos: "She sent him a link to a YouTube video labeled `TRUMP STING w CIA Director STEVE PIECZENIK, The Biggest Election Story in History, QFS-BLOCKCHAIN.' Pieczenik, a former State Department official, is a far-right commentator who has falsely claimed that the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., was a `false-flag' operation to push a gun-control agenda. ... Thomas wrote to Meadows, `I hope this is true; never heard anything like this before, or even a hint of it. Possible???'"

    She promoted baseless and debunked claims of electoral fraud: "On Nov. 19 ... Thomas continued to bolster Powell's standing in a text to Meadows. `Mark (don't want to wake you)... ' Thomas wrote. `Sounds like Sidney and her team are getting inundated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down.'"

    She expressed disgust with MIKE PENCE after Jan. 6: "The committee received one additional message sent by Thomas to Meadows, on Jan. 10, four days after the `Stop the Steal' rally Thomas said she attended and the deadly attack on the Capitol. ... `We are living through what feels like the end of America,' Thomas wrote to Meadows. `Most of us are disgusted with the VP and are in listening mode to see where to fight with our teams.'"

    Agreed (none / 0) (#121)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 08:22:08 AM EST
    Their pet name for each other.

    Is there a source for the "pet name" (none / 0) (#126)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 08:49:28 AM EST
    idea, or are you speculating (or hoping)?

    Sam Stein (none / 0) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 08:58:31 AM EST
    It's being reported everywhere it was their pet name for each other

    I have not heard a denial of that



    I did read (none / 0) (#129)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 09:02:28 AM EST
    that this was their pet name for each other, and looked to find the source before posting, but did not locate it. My comment should be considered to be a guess.

    Question (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 09:18:37 AM EST
    The justices usually know or have an idea how other justices are going to vote on something like this?

    Because if that is so he voted the way he did surely knowing the stuff would reveal what she had done and that he would be the one no vote.

    Seems kind of "in your face" to me.

    I mean he could have at least voted yes since the outcome was clear and looked a little better himself.


    Personal opinion (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 09:38:18 AM EST
    he doesn't care how it looks and he and his best friend gets off on him having the power to be "in your face" without any consequences for his actions. Bottom line,  the US has given the Supreme Court Justices to do anything that they d@mn well please since party politics will prevent impeachment.

    Should read (none / 0) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 09:42:50 AM EST
    the US has given the Supreme Court Justices the power to do anything they d@mn well please

    Yes. Before a ruling is released (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 09:47:05 AM EST
    all the justices have circulated to each other privately their anticipated vote and any reasons to be provided in support of that vote. This allows each of them the chance to respond (in writing) to what the others are thinking or intend to say, and even potentially to change their own mind (or try to persuade a colleague to change theirs). Also, you are wrong in suggesting that the Justices generally consider how their official actions will "look" to the public. They are all deeply invested in the idea (true or not) that their position as a member of the final and highest court, and their life tenure, requires that each of them must vote in every case according to what they personally think is right.

    Some basis for the "best friend" (none / 0) (#169)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 02:54:26 PM EST
    reference. Clarence Thomas has made numerous public statements about Ginni being his best friend.

    "My wife is my best friend," Clarence Thomas told students at Stetson University College of Law in 2010. "I can rant with her."

    "I love to spend time with my wife, who is totally my best friend," Thomas said at the Supreme Court Historical Society's annual lecture in 2019.  

    "My wife is my best friend in the whole word," Clarence Thomas said in a 2012 speech to University of Florida law students.

    "It's great to be married to your best friend," Thomas said at a gathering of the conservative Federalist Society in 1999.


    The text from Ginni T to Meadows says (none / 0) (#139)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 10:07:26 AM EST
    that a conversation with her "best friend," along with the message she had just received from Meadows,  had made her feel better about the election situation. In the case of Meadows, it seems that what made her feel better was reassurance that the Tr*mp team intended to keep fighting the results. I see no basis to infer what it was about the conversation with her husband (if that's the "best friend") that contributed to her feeling better about her preferred side apparently losing the election.

    I would like to see more discussion (none / 0) (#151)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 12:17:49 PM EST
    on what the legal basis of his recusal would be and how strong the arguments are. I will be looking for more MSM discussion of that.

    Her text reads (none / 0) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 12:23:25 PM EST
    that it was the dual reassurance of Meadows and her conversation with her "best friend" that made her feel better about continuing the fight to overthrow the election.

    Thomas replied: "Thank you!! Needed that! This plus a conversation with my best friend just now ... I will try to keep holding on. America is worth it!"

    Whether or not her "best friend" is Clarence Thomas, Ginni claims that a conversation with her best friend was one of the elements that encouraged in her beliefs.


    Nowhere does she say she (none / 0) (#155)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 12:38:50 PM EST
    wants to "overthrow the election." I would call it a Democratic talking point except that some Republicans (cf. Cheney) also use it. Many people shared her political views, which is why the election was close.

    Not if you put those words in (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 03:36:42 PM EST
    quotation marks. But a single-minded fixation of changing the announced results of the election is, in fact, an attempt to overturn the election, when there is no evidence of fraud -- just the usual isolated instances of voter error, voting-official error, and petty crimes -- that might have affected the result.

    Just a point of clarification for the confused (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 06:19:14 PM EST
    in this thread (not you Peter):
    There were no quotation marks associated  with the words overthrow the election in my comment. Any honest and intelligent interpretation would know those words were not a direct quote and any indication that it was a direct quote is disingenuous.  I have not read those words with quotation marks anywhere in this thread or on this site.

    My quotation marks were quoting you. (none / 0) (#190)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 06:47:16 PM EST
    I can go to many news articles that characterize her words exactly the same way. That is why it is in quotes.

    I put it in quotation marks (none / 0) (#182)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 05:49:33 PM EST
    because that is exactly how it is being worded everyhere and she never says this. Another way to characterize it would be to say "investigate the allegations of fraud" or even "challenge the election results" which has certainly been done many times by both democratic and republican losers in elections.  

    Republican Senator Ted Cruz (none / 0) (#154)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 12:29:16 PM EST
    grilled Judge Jackson on whether she would recuse herself on the pending Harvard University affirmative action admissions policy case, since she is on the Board of Overseers, term expires this spring.   The Republicans tried to make a big deal of it, but the Judge said it was her plan to recuse herself if confirmed.

    And, I believe that was the right decision on her part.  


    Is this something you know about? (none / 0) (#157)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 12:48:20 PM EST
    Supreme Court Justices aren't bound by the judicial code of conduct that applies to all other federal judges, which mandates that they recuse themselves from participating in any cases in which personal entanglements could cause a fair-minded member of the public to doubt their impartiality. Yet Justices are subject to a federal law that prohibits them from hearing cases in which their spouses have "an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding." The statute, 28 U.S.C. section 455, also requires them to disqualify themselves from any proceedings in which their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."


    Is this one of the laws that have no enforcement behind it other than impeachment.


    It seems this (none / 0) (#197)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 26, 2022 at 06:04:17 AM EST
    Statute would need a second statute to make it a crime , such as that an infraction is punishable by...... say., up to a year in jail (a misdemeanor) or up to five years (a felony).  There does not appear to be such additional component.  

    Thanks (none / 0) (#199)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 26, 2022 at 08:01:47 AM EST
    That is what I thought. Seems that there are too many statues that address our current political environment that do not have that needed element.

    The Supreme Court press office (none / 0) (#133)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 09:34:44 AM EST
    has announced that Thomas was discharged from the hospital this morning (Friday). With no other details provided.

    It is reported that he was released (none / 0) (#136)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 09:43:36 AM EST
    from the hospital just today. There has been no serious allegation of a crime or of undue influence on the judge, but once again we have hyperbolic reactions to someone's political views. Ginni Thomas is described as a political activist, but I do not know her history. If we equate the views or actions of a family member to justices and political leaders this just exacerbates our already fragile social order. Not everyone views J6 as an insurrection against the government and I have empathy for many (not all) of the defendants.

    But (none / 0) (#146)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 11:49:07 AM EST
    of course "some people" Hunter Biden is fair game, of course "some people" don't think J6 was an insurrection, of course some people think Putin is justified in his warmongering. Funny they are all the same people.

    Some of those (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 12:13:17 PM EST
    people include the Republican National Committee, who stated that the putsch was "legitimate political discourse".  And then censured Republican Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger for investigating this violet attempt to overthrow the government.  Doesn't the Republican Party sound fascist.?  

    I think we are a diverse nation (none / 0) (#147)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 12:01:11 PM EST
    of individuals with diverse views, not binary left or right. I think there may be interesting legal issues involved in these claims, which will be interesting to see play out.  

    Diverse (none / 0) (#148)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 12:11:43 PM EST
    all tight, some people think that attempting the overthrowing the government is wrong, some people don't. You, in your infinite wisdom have an open mind about it.

    Yes, (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 12:15:04 PM EST
    Violet overthrow of the government or democracy.  Opinions differ.

    Violence with no guns or direct fatalities other (none / 0) (#153)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 12:27:24 PM EST
    than that of an unarmed protestor. Not an attempt to "overthrow the gvmt" but rather to stall the process long enough to get an investigation of alleged fraud, which was always doomed for the lack of time. That is how I see it. The violence that was there, hitting police officers, spitting at them, macing them, was definitely bad and deserving of punishment, but most of the people there were not violent and were not trying to "overthrow the gvmt or democracy." Far from it.

    I believe you (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    are seriously off base. A disgraceful stance.

    The "investigation of fraud" was not (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 03:32:48 PM EST
    doomed for "lack of time." There was plenty of time between the summer (when the false allegations of fraud began, to cover up for the fact that Tr*mp was losing) and January. It was doomed for lack of evidence, and there was a lack of evidence because there was a lack of truthful foundation to the self-serving and baseless claims in the first place. Because there was no factual basis for challenging the election results, the rallying of angry partisans that led to a violent assault on the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to obstruct the constitutional counting of electoral votes was nothing but a seditious attempt to obstruct the peaceful transition of power in accordance with the democratic will of the people. It was thus an attack on our system of government, and in a real sense to overthrow the government itself.

    I think it is dangerous to label (none / 0) (#179)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 05:07:13 PM EST
    Americans who have different political views as seditionists and very unfortunate for our country. None of them have been charged with sedition although we shall see what happens with the few seditious conspiracy charges that have been given. I have real empathy for most of the people, who believed they were being patriotic and not seditious, and got caught up in a protest that turned into a riot. Of course they cannot fight the power of the federal gvmt, so most (not all) are accepting plea deals for misdemeanors like trespassing and parading. Delaying a consitutional counting is hardly overthrowing the gvmt.

    Please review my comment (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 06:50:46 PM EST
    No. 172. No one has been labeled a seditionist, either in court or here, because of their political views, no matter how crackpot, uninformed, quasi-fascist, racist, or otherwise. A political rally that "turned into a riot" would presumably have involved destruction of park property or perhaps nearby buildings' windows or the like. A march to the Capitol to physically "stop the steal" (i.e., to prevent the constitutional counting of electoral votes cast in accordance with the majority will of voters in a sufficient number of states, not to mention a solid majority of the national popular vote) is not in any way like a political demonstration the devolved into a riot (with which I have had some experience).

    As I said, this is not a debate I (none / 0) (#194)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 07:16:28 PM EST
    really want to have. We fundamentally disagree over the intentions of the protestors. My opinion is that many of these people believed they were being patriotic in protesting a flawed process and stupidly got caught up in a riot. These are mostly average Americans with jobs and kids, and love this country. There are of course a few bad actors but half the country is being painted as traitors and I think it is sad and unfair. And the damage was not as bad as the protracted summer riots, which were also out-of-hand protests.

    You would (none / 0) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 05:38:29 PM EST
    be incorrect. I'm only replying to you because someone passing by might think you know what you are saying. There have been several people charged with sedition. Honestly by your statements here you sound like a bot carrying water for the Kremlin because you are using the same talking points the Kremlin and their agents are.

    Please name these individuals. As (none / 0) (#183)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 05:53:50 PM EST
    far as I know, a few have been charged with  seditious conspiracy but this charge is problematic for reasons we can discuss if you really want to. Before now I have tried not to get into this debate about J6 because I don't want to get into a fight, really. But if I am wrong please tell me why.  

    One of the lawyers (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 06:13:44 PM EST
    will have to explain the difference but seditious conspiracy is very serious. Prosecutors do not like to use "sedition" to charge someone because it conflicts with their first amendment rights.

    If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.


    Replying to myself, I googled it (none / 0) (#186)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 06:19:17 PM EST
    and learned that seditious conspiracy is a form of sedition and is different from treason, which would be the carrying out of the sedition. Semantics! Although a few have been charged seditious conspiracy, we will see how that turns out, but my point was that the vast majority of people were just trespassers and it was not an insurrection or treason.

    Even the trespassers (none / 0) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 06:27:05 PM EST
    intended to interrupt a proceeding. The only people who should not be charged are the idiots who showed up to the rally but at least had the sense to go home afterwards.

    Definition of insurrection: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. Sure meets the definition of insurrection. So do you think the trespassers were only tourists visiting the capitol?


    I really am just giving my honest (none / 0) (#188)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 06:34:03 PM EST
    opinion that I think the majority of people got caught up in a political protest that turned into a riot. The whole thing makes me very sad.

    Very much like Stonewall (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 06:37:26 PM EST
    When you think about it.

    Counter argument (none / 0) (#158)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 12:54:04 PM EST
    Stephen Gillers, a law professor at N.Y.U. and a prominent judicial ethicist, described the revelations as "a game changer." In the past, he explained, he had supported the notion that a Justice and his spouse could pursue their interests in autonomous spheres. "For that reason, I was prepared to, and did tolerate a great deal of Ginni's political activism," he said. But "Ginni has now crossed a line." In an e-mail reacting to the texts, Gillers concluded, "Clarence Thomas cannot sit on any matter involving the election, the invasion of the Capitol, or the work of the January 6 Committee."



    Yes, this is why I say this might lead to (none / 0) (#159)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 01:31:01 PM EST
    an interesting legal argument, but it appears to me that it is a weak case. Here is another take from a conservative source that talks about precedents with similar cases.  

    THat is (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 01:46:07 PM EST
    an incredibly weak argument that author is making. He does a great job of playing the victim and claiming Clarence and Ginni are victims too. He doesn't even discuss what the texts actually say & I would say the reason for that is because they do not make her look good at all & she's basically Qanon.

    Why do you think the arguments about the (none / 0) (#162)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 02:01:39 PM EST
    precedents are weak? Ginni is a non-lawyer advocating for her personal views while some of the other cases involve family members who are lawyers advocating in amicus briefs or articles that are cited in court documents.  What exactly in the texts do you find so important to this case?  I agree with Justice Ginsburg that we should not treat recusal lightly.

    Typically (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 02:07:53 PM EST
    You have no idea what you are talking about.  

    Virginia "Ginni" Lamp Thomas (born February 23, 1957) is an American attorney and conservative activist. Born in Omaha, Nebraska, she married U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas in 1987.

    That's why I like commenting on (none / 0) (#165)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 02:24:23 PM EST
    this site. I learn new things. I am just learning about this issue with Thomas, for example, for the first time and find it interesting. Thanks for the correction.

    Ok (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 02:33:48 PM EST
    So I will allow myself one (1) reply to you.

    So you just blabber and blabber on.  You state equivocally she is a non lawyer when a 10 second google said she was.



    You don't "like learning things".  Or maybe you just suck at it.  What you do is spread crap and right wing propaganda until you are called out.

    You are called out.  I really don't know why smart people keep taking your troll bait nonsense.  I wish they would not.


    As I said, I am just reading now (none / 0) (#168)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 02:47:25 PM EST
    about this issue and nothing I have yet read focused on her being a lawyer or of her legal work, so I made an incorrect assumption and appreciate the correction. I was focused on what the article said about the precedents to recusal, and if those are wrong I would like to know that too. Thanks.

    This new information, (none / 0) (#170)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 03:20:27 PM EST
    Ginni being a Creighton  Law grad, no doubt changes everything.  Just when I was convinced it was better to save our breath to cool our soup..

    Harry Litman just said (none / 0) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 03:29:35 PM EST
    there is literally no law that would make hm recuse himself on anything.  That legally it is entirely up to him.

    I saw the comment about this only for the SC and it seemed unbelievable.


    The whole (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 04:13:30 PM EST
    recusal issue from what I have read is about ethics of which we already know Clarence Thomas does not have.

    Jane Mayer (none / 0) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 07:09:01 PM EST
    just said on MSNBC there is in fact a federal law that says no judge or justice can sit on a case that involves their wife (or husband one assumes) in "a substantial way"

    Jane Mayer.  Sound right?


    Jane in the Newyorker (none / 0) (#193)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 07:15:35 PM EST
    From the link (none / 0) (#195)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 07:19:50 PM EST
    Yet Justices are subject to a federal law that prohibits them from hearing cases in which their spouses have "an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding." The statute, 28 U.S.C. section 455, also requires them to disqualify themselves from any proceedings in which their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

    I looked this statute up (none / 0) (#196)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 09:42:58 PM EST
    prior to posting comment 157 above. From what I can determine in my non lawyerly reading, it is as stated in your quoted material.

    The question is is there a legal remedy for breaking this law other than impeachment.


    Yes (none / 0) (#198)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2022 at 06:58:13 AM EST
    I missed your comment.  Worth repeating tho.

    Those arguments (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 02:18:09 PM EST
    applied prior to January 6th before Ginni went from activist to actively supporting insurrection. I mean if she murdered someone and Clarence knew about it and did nothing would that be okay? Ginni actually transferred money to aid in insurrection. Can she prove that it was only her money? Did it come out of a joint checking account?

    The majority of Americans already have a low opinion of the supreme court and having someone suspected of a crime on the court doesn't help. John Roberts supposedly is very concerned about the legitimacy of the court. He should try to do something but he probably wont.


    Not a great fan (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 26, 2022 at 09:23:14 AM EST
    of the Chief Justice (he has never seen a voting right that should not be taken away, for instance), but there is not much he can do.  Each Justice makes his/her own  determinations on conflicts, appearances of such, and bowing out.

    So what to do about Clarence.  Some are saying he should disqualify himself from election-related cases.   But the best answer for the Court and Country is that he should resign.  Impeachment and conviction won't happen.  No Republican will vote to remove a grand Republican justice,  such as Clarence, with a Democratic president in office.  We are stuck with this corruption.


    Yes, we will see (none / 0) (#166)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 02:27:00 PM EST
    where those arguments go. I am skeptical.

    The outrageous nature of Ginni Thomas's (none / 0) (#174)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 03:50:53 PM EST
    texts has nothing to do with her being a lawyer (although she is), as far as I can see. There is nothing "legal" about them; they do not utilize the skills or training of a lawyer, nor do they advance legal arguments. They simply repeat and amplify b/s from utterly unqualified commentators on far-Right "news" shows and Internet sites. Is there anything about her work or accomplishments that would explain her having direct access to the President's chief of staff, other than her being Justice Thomas's wife, I wonder?

    The only reason it matters she is a lawyer (none / 0) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 04:00:22 PM EST
    Is because your buddy stated she was not

    A lawyer.


    No "buddy" of mine (none / 0) (#176)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 04:07:51 PM EST
    I respond to comments when I think my response will be informative or otherwise of interest to the people who read this blog, not necessarily to the person who wrote the prior comment.

    For the record (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 04:10:46 PM EST
    "Slav on Slav" violence is back in the headlines.  I've heard it several times recently.  This morning on Morning Joe there was a whole segment with a general talking about Slav on Slav.

    So, not everyone got this memo.


    I mispoke. I should have (none / 0) (#180)
    by ladybug on Fri Mar 25, 2022 at 05:24:32 PM EST
    said "a nonpracticing attorney," which was pointed out in that article but I missed it. Sorry.