Part ll: Upside-Down World

Yesterday I wrote a post about the absurdities going on in our society today here. I plan to add to this growing controversy today. The Democrats are now hoping to change the dynamics of the Supreme Court in a very fundamental way that is truly not Constitutional.

Justice Clarence Thomas

A Supreme Court Justice is appointed for life or until they retire or die. Democrats are now calling for Justice Clarence Thomas to resign. This is absolutely unheard of though they seemed to pull this stunt in the past with little success. A Supreme Court Justice can choose to step down for many reasons, but not because it should be at the political whim of Democrats or Republicans. Justices are confirmed by politicization and agenda. Let us not kid ourselves someone is always lobbying for their liberal wants and many conservatives have joined the bandwagon such as Mitt Romney.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Democrat, called Sunday for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from any cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot based on his wife’s leaked texts, and some Democrats went even further.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Democrat, tweeted Thursday that “Clarence Thomas needs to be impeached,” while Rep. Nydia Velazquez, New York Democrat, said in a Friday tweet that the conservative justice “needs to resign.

At the bare minimum, Justice Thomas needs to recuse himself from any case related to the January 6th investigation, and should Donald Trump run again, any case related to the 2024 election,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, in a Friday statement.” (Source)

Two dozen House and Senate Democrats, including members of the Judiciary Committees in both chambers, made the request in a letter sent Monday to Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts. The group said recent revelations from the Washington Post and CBS News of text messages Thomas’ wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, exchanged with former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows regarding the 2020 presidential election “raise serious questions” about Thomas’ participation in the earlier cases given the potential conflicts of interest. Since Virginia Thomas’ text messages were first reported last week, at least three other Democratic legislators have called on Justice Thomas to resign, while several others have said he should recuse himself in cases related to the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 riot.

This is completely uncalled for. The Democrats and in particular Biden want Thomas out so they can pack it with more Brown Jacksons and her ilk, which will destroy the only government entity that does not legislate but adjudicates. Where is the American people’s outrage? There is none because they listen to this filthy smear tactic and believe it is justified.

Who is old enough to remember this?

Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings 1991

During these hearings, they stooped so low that they actually proudly discussed pubic hair with a “haha we’ve gotcha moment.” Looking back at Joe Biden presiding over these hearings was as disgusting then as it is now. It was a modern-day witch hunt. It is what the Democrats tried to pull over on the American people regarding Justice Cavanaugh. Is it becoming familiar to you now? Can you recognize the despicable tactics and how low Democrats will stoop to push what they want not only on their peers but the American citizenry?

Wake up, people. Too many people that claim to know the game are not woken up to the lies and deceptions that continue to permeate to this day. No justice is perfect. I am sure that there have been indiscretions on their part, but Brown Jackson is no different and perhaps far worse — even dangerous. Calling for the impeachment of Thomas does not have merit, ergo, it is mute.

While the American people keep drinking the kool-aid and getting hyper on all the added sugar to go around, while the congress and senate are drinking martinis’ and cosmos on your dime and time. Wake up, people. Can you not see something is wrong here? There is a plot, a plan, a methodology to this madness. Change the fabric of how SCOTUS adjudicates, change the course of history, change the course of America, and you dear people will have no rights, no freedoms, and will be beholden to the whims of the Democrat dimwits that believe 1950’s communist scare tactics can work on the citizenry of the U.S. today.

It’s an upside-down world. We are responsible to make it upright once again. Are you with me?

44 thoughts on “Part ll: Upside-Down World

Add yours

  1. A history lesson:

    In 2004, Chavez’s allies held a majority in Venezuela’s National Assembly (congress), passing a law that increased the number of judges on the Venezuelan Supreme Court from twenty (20) members to thirty-two (32).

    Those seats were quickly filled with Chavez loyalists. But it wouldn’t be the last time those in power manipulated the Court for political gain.

    In 2015, opponents of President Nicolas Maduro (Chavez’s hand-picked successor) won a majority of congressional seats. But pro-Maduro members of the lame-duck congress rammed through thirteen (13) new Supreme Court justices who favored Maduro’s regime retaining power. That was in addition to the sixteen (16) pro-Maduro judges appointed just the year before.

    This hyper-partisan fixing of the Court quickly devastated Venezuela’s constitutional structure. In 2017, the Supreme Court issued a shocking and dystopian ruling stripping the country’s national assembly of its powers, allowing the magistrates to assume legislative duties.

    Court-packing also destroyed judicial independence. Research reports show that of the 45,000 rulings issued by Venezuela’s high court since 2004, the court never sided against Chavez’s government after it was packed. Not once.

    Judicial independence and the impartiality of judges are cornerstones of a free society. But as the example of Venezuela shows, once courts are packed with activist judges to carry out the will of a political party, an independent judiciary and a constitutional republic are likely to wither shortly thereafter.

    Once the ‘oficialistas’ seize power their actions are deemed “legitimate”. Any move to pack SCotUS should be met with armed rebellion and not merely “protest” in the street. Protests do NOT change oficialista regimes.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. btw – Does anyone here read the Lawfare blog. If you want to know what the Deep State Democrats are up to, its’ the blog to read.

    lawfare
    [ˈlôˌfer]
    NOUN
    legal action undertaken as part of a hostile campaign against a country or group.
    “lawfare is being used by both sides in the current conflict”

    Liked by 2 people

        1. aka – A incoming Democratic president’s short list for cabinet level and other political appointments. Most Republican presidential SES and above level appointments come the Hoover Institute @ Stanford.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Once an Administration is over, Think Tanks are where the political parties temporarily “park” their “shadow government” members until the next election.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. There’s no reason for Thomas to step down, certainly not enough compelling reason (at this time) for him to be impeached.

    If he has judicial integrity, I would expect that he would recuse himself from any future cases before the Court that relate to the January 6th attempt to stop the legitimate transfer of power.

    I do find it curious that he was the lone voice of dissent in the case of Trump records and the National Archives……

    Liked by 1 person

        1. …especially in government, the members (Republican AND Democrat) of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) being my favorite whipping dog.

          Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree completely with your remarks. There is nothing to compel him to step down. It is amazing though how often the Dems have thrown the word impeachment out here for the last five years. Both parties should work together—that was the reason for the Constitution but now it is more like anything goes. There is no honesty or moral integrity within these people making all these assertions.

      Like

  4. I have a blog hitting Saturday that deals with Thomas and “recusal”. Recusal means you have a conflict of interest. If Thomas has a conflict of interest because his wife felt that the 2020 elections were stolen, then you would also have to agree that Nancy Pelosi has a conflict of interest and should recuse herself from anything to do with finances because of Paul Pelosi’s stock and options trades. In fact, I can’t see how Clarence Thomas has any material benefit from what his wife is doing (necessary for conflict of interest), but I certainly can understand how Nancy Pelosi does! Democrats need to just google “conflict of interest” and read the definition!

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Let me start by saying that according to the law, there is no requirement for Justice Thomas to recuse himself. The law is clear… while there are laws requiring recusal in all other branches of the Federal Judiciary, those laws are guidelines of behavior for each supreme court judge.

    In other words, SCOTUS judges are to look at the cases before them and act according voluntarily according to the guidelines if a case so warrants.

    Here is the law that requires recusal for most federal judges and sets the standards for voluntary recusal for SCOTUS judges.

    (a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

    (b)He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

     -Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
    
     -He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
    
     -He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
    
     -Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
    

    Again, while there is no law requiring recusal, Justice Thomas has recused himself in a case regarding his son. So he is aware of the guidelines and has submitted to them in the past.

    We now know Justice Thomas’ wife Ginni was texting with Trump Admin Chief of Staff Meadows during the, depending on your point of view, the insurrection/tourist visit/restoration of democracy that happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6. That is a fact.

    We know cases involving texts to and from Admin members, including trump Chief of Staff Meadows have been and continue to be litigated before the SCOTUS. That also is a fact.

    I would ask anyone caring to answer this question, based on the above guidelines from 28 U.S. Code § 455…

    Is it unrealistic based on the above, especially after Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter in the first SCOTUS ruling on turning over text messages to the 1/6 commission, to think the impartiality of Justice Thomas might reasonably be questioned?

    Like

    1. Okay, so I have no idea what happened on the formatting… Here is that part, hopefully in a better format.

      Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

      He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

      He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

      Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

      Like

      1. Now, a more personal reply…

        I get that we are in the middle of a partisan meltdown here in the US. I get it. But there have to be some people on both sides of the political divides we face, who will cross the aisle and call out their own leaders for malfeasance and bad behavior.

        I called loud and clear after the Lewinsky affair for Clinton to resign. I felt he had damaged the office of the presidency. Sitting VP Al Gore went public with his disgust about Clinton’s actions. Howard Baker, a sitting US Republican Senator walked to the White House to tell Nixon he had to go. Barry Goldwater announced that Nixon had lost the support of the party and had to go.

        None of those political leaders were called traitors to their parties. Not. A. One.

        i’m not in favor of the impeachment of Thomas, but calls for his recusal, based on the guidelines do seem reasonable to me.

        His lone vote of dissent, which CI noted, certainly appears like a vote to potentially shield the reality of his wife’s texts from the light of day.

        For the good of the court, he should recuse. And it won’t change a thing on a 6-3 court, except to remove the hint of partiality.

        Like

    2. It is not unreasonable to question him, however, it was his wife doing the texting, not him. The better question would be did he know and if so how much did he know? Again, he may not have known and his wife compromised his position or took advantage of his position to do her own wielding. No one knows and right now hearsay means nothing.

      Like

        1. He now knows his wife is a potential litigant and has an interest that could be affected by each and every ruling by the SCOTUS on Jan 6.

          Isn’t that enough reason to recuse?

          Like

        2. Everyone is a “potential litigant”. Until she is named in an indictment, Thomas has no obligation to recuse himself from anything.

          When will Biden recuse himself from decisions vis Ukraine/China, given his son’s direct fidicuary interests, as well as Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry’s sons?

          Liked by 1 person

  6. I agree with Dave; there does appear sufficient cause for Justice Thomas to recuse himself — if not because he was directly affected in his judgment by his tweety wife, then because the public’s perception of Thomas’ lack of integrity might cause the public to lose faith in their judicial system. (Right. As if that hasn’t already happened).

    The problem we face is that no one is able to separate themselves from their personal biases. Every judge at every level of our judicial system carries his “biases” with him/her into the courtroom. Now in that context, does anyone get a fair trial in America? I ask the question because none of us is able to escape our personal biases. They shape who we are, how we think, how we act, and how we vote.

    As far as the rest of the herd is concerned, none of us elected Nancy Pelosi Speaker, but it must be clear to even a one-cell critter that Paul has a direct influence on his wife. Is that fair to the rest of us? Probably not, but then life isn’t always fair. In complicated societies, stuff happens. If life was fair, then Mitch McConnel would recuse himself from every issue in the senate because there isn’t enough electricity inside his head to light off a fart.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. In a perfect world, I’d agree with you Mustang. Our world, however, is FAR from perfect, and this is one in which the judge’s sole discretion is the only thing that matters. This smear of Thomas is pure “Alinsky”, to make the opposition live up to the rules that it never does.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Minus… I’m sympathetic to your views, I think summed up further down the thread by Bunkerville that the GOP feels like they are in a “fight to the finish”, so essentially all gloves are off.

        Conservatives for years have painted themselves as more moral, [think the Moral Majority], more religious [The 700 Club] and more Godly [see any poll on the last few presidential elections] or Christian.

        No fair person can argue otherwise.

        The problem is and has always been, that politics is a secular, immoral work. Conservatives for years have tried to sell themselves as drainers of the immoral swamp. I have no problem with that.

        At all.

        But when believers put aside their deeply held beliefs regarding truth and morality to “win”, or to take the gloves off and level the playing field, I worry about the damage done to those faiths and the US.

        Many of the faithful call themselves followers of Jesus. A man who did not rebel when faced with a clearly unjust verdict and sentence. A man who if we believe scripture, could have easily called for a different outcome that day on the hill.

        And yet when faced with the immorality of the system, he chose to not set aside his beliefs, his calling or to repay evil with evil. He quietly went to the cross. He demonstrated the life Paul calls all Christians to in Philippians to serve others likewise and “consider others better than ourselves.”

        The left has never really defined their decisions as divinely led or much less, God inspired. The right, and conservatives, at least in recent times, of course have.

        That alone argues for a posture of limits, a posture that does not repay bad with bad, does not respond in kind to the immoral.

        So while I agree with you and Bunker that yes, it seems like a double standard or even as some have suggested, a disarming by the right, someone has to go first to break the log jam we are in politically.

        Why not the side that for a generation has tried to claim the high moral and more Godly ground?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I agree with you but I will remind you of when Jesus made a whip with his own hands and went into the Temple and began turning over tables and telling the sellers and bargainers that they have turned the House Of God into a den of thieves. He was quite angry and not the need savior many believe he was. He was on a mission.

          Like

    2. I do not disagree with either of you. I just believe the leftists and media lie, make more of issues than they are.

      Tweety wife should have known better than that. Obviously this quiet woman for some years just could not help herself and I will not presume to guess why. She sure was not thinking about her husband when she did that. It’s a fact she knew better but did it anyways.

      I have no issues with Thomas recusing himself. Judges and attorneys do this all the time for a myriad of reasons.

      My angst are the calls for him to step down and to literally threaten him with impeachment. I find it disgusting and very hypocritical on the Dems part. How about impeaching those two knuckle heads, you know – that Joe blow and his cackling VP!

      Like

  7. It has nothing to do with perception… it is al life time appointment. If Ginsburg could be as politically involved to go as far as opining on Trump…yet no one complained why do the GOPers continue to demand of themselves the moral high ground. We are in for a fight to the finish… There is no one that has been more dedicated to the Constitution… lay off..

    Liked by 1 person

  8. It has nothing to do with perception… it is al life time appointment. If Ginsburg could be as politically involved to go as far as opining on Trump…yet no one complained why do the GOPers continue to demand of themselves the moral high ground.

    I stated the very same point in my previous two posts. I am sick and tired of GOPs talking about going for the moral high ground. There was no complaining when RBG opined on Trump from the GOP. You are correct Bunker to point out that the appointment of any SCOTUS is for a lifetime. These demands of resigning and stepping down, threats of impeachment have nothing to do with his appointment and are unfounded. If there is a conflict of interest the man is way smarter than any one of us and believe me he knows to recuse himself he does not need no half-wit dim-wit Democrat liberal neo-con to tell him a darn thing!

    Your remarks here are refreshing and much in line with my own.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: