Clarence Thomas in Hot Water (Alito too!)

#826
#826
volfanhill said:
Your second point is not relevant. Not his job to reign in his wife. I sure as **** dont try to reign mine. Two different people who just happen to love each other.

Can you imagine the gasket that would explode if a conservative suggested a liberal reign his wife in? Good lord. Hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
His wife can do what she wants, but Thomas needs to bow out of court decisions if they could involve her. The wife had been texting/calling Mark Meadows regarding overturning the election. There were subpoenas for various items including communications with the White House regarding that time and subject. The supreme court refused to hear the Trump camp's appeal without comment, except Thomas, who wrote an opinion disagreeing with the decision not to take up the appeal. I believe the subpoena ultimately lead to the public disclosure of Ginny Thomas's text messages. Seems like he shouldn't have been involved in the decision let alone be writing opinions about it.
 
#829
#829
clarksvol00 said:
His wife can do what she wants, but Thomas needs to bow out of court decisions if they could involve her. The wife had been texting/calling Mark Meadows regarding overturning the election. There were subpoenas for various items including communications with the White House regarding that time and subject. The supreme court refused to hear the Trump camp's appeal without comment, except Thomas, who wrote an opinion disagreeing with the decision not to take up the appeal. I believe the subpoena ultimately lead to the public disclosure of Ginny Thomas's text messages. Seems like he shouldn't have been involved in the decision let alone be writing opinions about it.
Click to expand...
No he holds the job. Not her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#832
#832
85SugarVol said:
He called her a whore a few posts back
Click to expand...
BowlBrother85 said:
Admittedly, this doesn't implicate Clarence Thomas in any wrongdoing, and may even have more to do with his attention-whore wife than it does with him, but still ...
Click to expand...
You left a part of what I said out (most likely, deliberately).

I called Ginni Thomas an "attention-whore." Based on her behavior both on, and leading up to January 6, 2021, that would be a fair description of her.
 
#834
#834
clarksvol00 said:
Are you saying you think it's appropriate for him to hear matters his wife could be involved in?
Click to expand...
Yes of course. If he has some how violated soelthinh hold him to account. Should he personally be involved in a case that for example involves his wife business? No. Her belief structure? Of course.
 
#835
#835
BowlBrother85 said:
You left a part of what I said out (most likely, deliberately).

I called Ginni Thomas an "attention-whore." Based on her behavior both on, and leading up to January 6, 2021, that would be a fair description of her.
Click to expand...
Oh, the good kind of “whore”?
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#836
#836
hog88 said:
The two that are being reported, let's be clear on that. None of the media is digging into the 3 on the other side. Hell RBG was famous for taking trips on other peoples dimes and nobody cared. It wasn't a damn issue until now.
Click to expand...

It's the same knuckleheads just trying to distract from the Biden Crime Family Syndicate.
 
#837
#837
Orangeslice13 said:
Guys who think that a wife can be reigned traditionally don’t have one.
Click to expand...
... or they have a former one. LOL.

I think you guys are way off base in equating the Thomas's circumstance with every other marriage. At least presenting the outward appearance of not having political allegiances is important to the Supreme Court.
 
#839
#839
BowlBrother85 said:
1) He literally went 10 years (from 2006 to 2016) without ever asking a question of an attorney during oral arguments.

2) Has never reigned in his activist wife, who was trying to help Trump overturn the outcome of his own defeat in the 2020 Presidential Election. (No wonder Trump's attorneys viewed him as a political asset.)

3) Has no qualms with accepting benefits from billionaire Republican Party donors, who have or have had business before the Supreme Court.

4) Has failed to properly disclose receiving such benefits.
Click to expand...

Is he supposed to slap his wife around, get the ’ol lady in line?
 
#842
#842
hog88 said:
Is he supposed to slap his wife around, get the ’ol lady in line?
Click to expand...
I think asking her to be less active in trying to overturn the outcome of a lawful election, would have been a good idea. She was calling and texting Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, in effort to get martial law declared. This wasn't normal.
 
#843
#843
BowlBrother85 said:
I never said there was anything "good" about it.

There just wasn't a sexual component involved, as would be the case, with what you falsely claimed I said.
Click to expand...
Oh, so a less offensive type of “whore”?

Street whore
Attention whore
Crack whore
Fraternity whore

How do all of these whores rank in your expert opinion?
 
#844
#844
BowlBrother85 said:
I think asking her to be less active in trying to overturn the outcome of a lawful election, would have been a good idea. She was calling and texting Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, in effort to get martial law declared. This wasn't normal.
Click to expand...

Maybe he did ask her, what’s he supposed to do if she said no?
 
#845
#845
volfanhill said:
Yes of course. If he has some how violated soelthinh hold him to account. Should he personally be involved in a case that for example involves his wife business? No. Her belief structure? Of course.
Click to expand...
Like I said, she can and should do wants she wants. C. Thomas, and the rest of his colleagues, however should keep in mind the fact that they are one of nine people in charge of the branch of the US government that has the least oversight from the other two.
 
#846
#846
BowlBrother85 said:
Try getting your facts straight.

He was lying. I called her an "attention-whore."

See post # 816 of this thread.

Her conduct on January 6th more than justifies such a description.
Click to expand...
Except you do admit to calling her a “whore”. You just want to qualify it.

I swear we’ve been down this path with you before…
 
#847
#847
85SugarVol said:
Oh, so a less offensive type of “whore”?

Street whore
Attention whore
Crack whore
Fraternity whore

How do all of these whores rank in your expert opinion?
Click to expand...
If we're ranking them on the level of offensiveness I'd say attention-whore is probably less than the other three.

Edit: still not something I'd throw around though.
 
#848
#848
85SugarVol said:
Oh, so a less offensive type of “whore”?

Street whore
Attention whore
Crack whore
Fraternity whore

How do all of these whores rank in your expert opinion?
Click to expand...
I don't care enough about it to answer such a stupid question.

You misrepresented what I had called Ginni Thomas, and I explained how.
 
#849
#849
clarksvol00 said:
If we're ranking them on the level of offensiveness I'd say attention-whore is probably less than the other three.
Click to expand...
Well I’m sure he’ll chalk that up as a win. Still called her a “whore”. Which is what I said.

He’s still the one in here talking about Clarence Thomas’ “whore” wife that he needs to “reign in” and get in line.

And he hasn’t even really started in on Clarence yet. That’s when the fireworks really start.
 
#850
#850
85SugarVol said:
Except you do admit to calling her a “whore”. You just want to qualify it.

I swear we’ve been down this path with you before…
Click to expand...
No, I don't.

I called her an "attention-whore" ... not just a "whore" - which would involve a sexual component.

Calling Ginni Thomas an "attention-whore" is being kind, after the way she behaved on January 6th.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top